of course the rich pay more taxes...its simple math. the point Zinn was making is that the richest households pay a lower percentage than the working class and middle class. if i make 10k/yr and pay 3k in taxes fine, but the man making 100k better be paying 30k. and the man making 1M per yr better be paying 300k. If you make 3x my salary and only pay 2x my taxes yes you pay more but seriously... take a math class and look up the word injustice, have a great one:)
in 2010, forbes magazine named carlos slim as the richest man in the world and pointed out that assuming his networth didnt change, he could spend $1,000 a minute for 100 years before running out of money....capitalism rapes our world and keeps us in the dark ages...we could do so much yet we stay complacent with television and microwave dinners....we hav a plebeian culture.....
also, anyone who can read knows there is an ongoing debate as to who should be taxed and how much...why else would politicians mention taxes or healthcare or other issues if they were not within the context of current problems?....also, you'd have to be an idiot not to see that the super rich use thier influence to keep the system running in a way that most benifits them....thier whole world, thier lifestyle only exists as long as the rest of us are perpetually the working poor
in easiest terms, within our current system, people are able to amass rediculous amounts of money improve our infrastructure, education, eliminate poverty and provide FREE healthcare
@RadioFreeWisconsin i agree with you that there is nothing wrong with honest bussiness or just "making more money" but zinn isnt talking about people thst just "make more money," when he says "the top" he means the super rich...in the easiests terms, with our current system, people are able to amass rediculous amounts of money that could and should be used to repair and improve our ibf.
Taxes are a class phenomenon? Zinn didn't understand anything about economics. Class war in America? Perhaps in some Marxist fantasy version of history. I wish Zinn's books were not regarded as standard reading. What we need are Sowell's books as standard reading.
mr. zinn shows a typical trait found in socialist intellectuals and social scientists- he sees everything as a conspiracy, as a plot by a group of people trying to secretly fuk another. the social sciences are full of this bullshit
Even if the video is "awful", there is still some vlaue in seeing just how completely disconnected from reality a frequently referenced nutjob like Zinn really is.
Why do people get so angry when they hear that someone else is making alot of money? How does it hurt me if someone else is making money? Even if I'm not making anything, my situation does not become worse by someone else making money? Rich people do not make money by taking through force (that is what government does), rich people make money by producing products that other people want to buy. What is so wrong with that?
Your forgetting that those products in one way or another better every one. The people whom buy them see value in the product. Job creation for those whom are paid to either make, ship or supply said products.
@RadioFreeWisconsin I couldn't agree with you more! The problem comes when people who feel they being treated unfairly because of their socio-economic situation want something done about it. So the politicians jump in to capitalize on people's anger (jealousy) and say it's so and so's fault and if you just give them more power, they'll take care of the problem. Of course we all know that never happens. The war on poverty has been going on since the sixties with little or no progress.
"If [government] would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing."
Zinn better look out, that fool is rich to me. I like how he says "super rich" to exclude himself. When I was a kid, any one who was middle class was rich to me. its relative, not absolute.
What all this rhetoric against "the rich" disguises is that the income tax is most harmful to those who need to continue to earn an income. Those who are still working for a living are disproportionately hurt, rather than those rich enough to stop working and live off savings. Income tax is anti-middle class.
You're wrong on socialized health care. We spend more per person than Germany already. So government health care would be rationed. Costs would go down. It is an idealogical argument sure but universal health care most certainly would be cheaper than the patch work hybrid system we currently have. Health care also limits free trade as people get very angry when they lose their jobs and their health care. Universal care would at least ease tensions from job losses and limit protectionist populism
>> So government health care would be rationed. Costs would go down.
You're an idiot. There is nothing that the government can do to benefit society. That's an absolute economic fact. Everything the state does is detrimental to society. Stop what you are doing right now and go pick up a copy of "Economics in one lesson."
The reason health care is so expensive is because the government got involved with the FDA, the AMA, patents, requiring a prescription, etc. And now you want to make it worse
My points are still valid. No country has free market health care. Costs would go down with rationing. Pick up a Paul Krugman book or read The Economist Newspaper's extensive articles on health care policy. You tell voters that you're ending Medicare, Medicaid and see how far you get (hint no votes).
No the aren't. All arguments for the existence of government are founded in mental illness. Your point is invalidated by both ethics and economics.
>> No country has free market health care
That's because there isn't an inch of dirt on this planet that is not under the boot of a communist dictatorship. Just because something is normative does not make it correct. Argumentum ad populum is a typical communist fallacy.
Another economic fallacy. Price controls prevent competition, establish monopolies and INCREASE PRICES. Just look at what has happened with cable tv and electricity.
>> Pick up a Paul Krugman
I'm actually well versed in Krugman, Marx, Keynes and all other forms of Nazi propaganda. Why don't you try reading Mises, Rothbard, and Hazlitt, starting with "Economics in One Lesson" and "Economic calculation in the socialist common wealth"
"No country has free market health care." As if that's a justification for making our health care system less free? What goes down with government-coerced rationing is freedom and quality. Better to have a health care system based on freedom and choices.
Can't afford something? The answer to affordability is personal responsibility and voluntary charity, NOT government coercion, taxation, and redistribution.
The reason health care is so expensive in the US is because the government restricts the supply or doctors and med schools. On top of that, they force insurance companies to cover everyone in the same class of coverage. Imagine how expensive auto insurance would be if the government mandated that every clunker be covered at the same level of coverage as a Ferrari. People wouldn't be able to afford auto insurance either.
Get the government out of heathcare and prices will return to their pre Roosevelt-II levels (i.e. next to nothing). Abolish the state entirely and the world will have peace and prosperity beyond anything they could possibly imagine.
How is the insurance thing untrue? I happen to have spent several years writing software in the insurance industry and it is true. People with chronic diseases pay the same amount as those people who go decades without so much as a physical. It's absolutely true. If you deny it the only thing you are proving is that you are a raving psychotic. The facts are still going to be the same.
Um you said they "cover everyone in the same class of coverage" which is completely untrue.
There are multitudes of plans available and if it were true congress wouldn't be considering taxing the "Cadillac plans" to cover the new healthcare bill.
No I didn't I said a perfectly healthy individual will pay the same rate as one who has a chronic disease, which means that the vast majority of healthy people are paying more than their share, not to mention that 95% of the cost of insurance is filling out paperwork and complying with asinine government regulations.
We're a lot farther into it than that. Government has been around for at least 10,000 years. Furthermore, that isn't an argument. Just because something exists doesn't mean that its ideal. Abolishing evil from the world always makes sense. The word "anarchist" simply describes an individual who is mentally healthy (ie. one who does not have an anti-social personality disorder).
That defies basic economics. The price system guarantees that if people need something there will be a market for it, which creates a supply. Try looking up the phrase "marginal utility."
You never need to ROB people at gun point to get them to pay for things they already want and need. Terrorism (a.k.a. government) is only needed when they don't want what you are pushing.
Fluoride is a deadly toxin. So is clorine, arsenic, prozac, et al. All of them are in our government water here. That's why no one uses tap water for anything other than the toliet despite the fact that they have already been forced to pay for it by sausage smoking Stalinists like you.
You're projecting. You want to see someone who is delusional, I suggest you look in the mirror.
Not really sure what a clip from a trite and asinine movie directed by a jackbooted Bolshevik is supposed to prove.
FYI: I don't know where you went to school, but Dr. Strangelove is part of the state indoctrination program at every government school I've ever heard of. I've already been forced to watch it several times.
"What is this evil program that dares use hollywood movies to indoctrinate people called? "
It's called the Mental Illness Installation System. Or more euphemistically, "public" schools. See plank 10 of the communist manifesto for further details.
>> So when you shower, you are in fact being exposed to continuous poisonous water
I'm not because I have a filter for the house plus an additional filter for the shower. Of course, if you could pull your head out of your ass for half a millisecond you might realize that chlorine @ shower temperatures becomes a gas and is a leading cause of heart disease, the second most deadly disease in the world after government.
Yeah I mean look at them millions upon millions of autopsies ever year linking heart disease to excessive chlorine levels oh wait the government censors all those too.
"Yeah I mean look at them millions upon millions of autopsies ever year linking heart disease to excessive chlorine levels oh wait the government censors all those too."
A quick search for "chlorine and heart disease" in Google produces 300,000 results. no need to continue denying every fact that is mentioned. We've already established that you are completely psychotic and are going to deny everything that is true.
That might be because of your google cache but regardless neither article or source actually shows evidence (i.e. millions upon millions of autopsies ever year showing large amounts of chlorine associated with heart disease).
Sort of? Try paying $5000 a month for prescription drugs just so some jackass like Merck can protect his state granted extortion racket and then see how you feel about it.
Anyone who thinks that Stalinism is a good idea should contract cancer. Then you can get a taste of the suffering you have inflicted on others and maybe you could learn some empathy you totalitarian twat.
Right. Because you don't want to deal with the fact that terrorist monopolies have made the situation worse. Since the high cost of drugs (because of patents) is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) health care problems.
But you don't care about that, because you haven't got the slightest concern whether or not people can actually afford health care. This is about you excercising power, not the livelyhood of others.
most generic drugs are generic because the chemical is easy to reproduce or highly abundant resulting in lower prices while the converse is true with patents.
Patents for drugs follow a basic trend and prices are more determined by supply and demand then patent status.
The word "generic" as defined by the FDA means no longer protected by a PATENT, jackass. Something anyone who isn't psychotic could verify in five seconds using the internet.
Again, like I said verifiable to anyone who is not a raving psychotic. You are a raving psychotic which is why reality makes no sense to you, but anyone who is sane can easily verify that the term "generic" as used by the FDA means "not covered by patent"
Seriously you have terrible reading comprehension or you are again using a strawman even though I never once claimed what certifies the term "generic".
Well. It's nice to see that at least we have cured you of the psychotic disorder that "I never once claimed what certifies the term generic" One down, one hundred more to go.
You've got that backwards though Adolf. Like all schizophrenic Stalinists, you've completely reversed cause and effect. It's not that generics are not covered by patents because they are easy produce. They are easy to produce because they are not covered by patents.
"They are easy to produce because they are not covered by patents."
It works both ways, do you really think paclitaxel is super easy to produce? And on that note do you think Sildenafil (or viagra) is easy to reproduce because it's not patented? (Sildenafil is patented solely by Pfizer)
I wouldn't know, I'm not a biochemist and unlike you I'm not a big enough jackass to claim authority over things I know nothing about.
I do know however that a patent is a monopolistic act of TERRORISM committed by a government on behalf of another organization so that that organization can prevent competition and charge extortionist prices.
You schizophrenic raving is self-contradictory. If its so difficult to compete with why does it need a patent?
I'm generally against patents (or restrictive patents anyway) but patents serve an important purpose of giving the author control (though it does seem uneeded for drugs.)
Take for instance Kalashnikov whose company is now facing bankruptcy because the AK-47 is forged around the world.
The main point is, patents have little to do with drug prices as opposed to other things like supply.
That's why drugs like viagra are cheap as hell even though only Pfizer is allowed to distribute it.
What? The whole purpose of a patent is to restrict supply!
Viagra was VERY expensive when it first came out. Pfizer only lowered their prices when their terrorist actions failed to prevent competition.
Their monopoly failed because both Eli Lilly (cialis) and Bayer (levitra) followed with similar products, but with different chemicals (which made the Pfizer monopoly invalid). Pfizer was unable to sustain patent rates.
bahaha Sildenafil (viagra), Tadalafil (Cialis) and Vardenafil (levitra) are 3 completely different drugs. They aren't the same drug under different names.
"Steal?" Like everything else in your psychotic wet dreams, you've got that completely backwards. Ideas are not property. A patent however, is stealing. If one girl puts her hair in a pony tail, she has stolen nothing, but if she uses violence to prevent other girls from putting their hair in pony tails, she has stolen something. She has stolen their natural right to compete and made the other girls her slaves.
If patents are valid, why do they expire? No one says that after a few years you no longer own your body or your t-shirt.
Ask someone if they would prefer to be a slave for a few decades or for their entire life obviously they would choose a shorter term. But that doesn't validate slavery, especially for people who are sick and dying and can't afford to wait for a monopoly to expire in order to afford health care.
>> still the sole distributor of it so the patent is still in effect.
But of no value since the patent has been sidestepped by the invention of similar but not identical products (which fortunately is still legal). The patent (which is an attempt to establish a monopoly through violence) FAILED, forcing them to either lower their prices to a competitive level or loose the market completely to the competition.
Oligopolies do not exist. As long as there is free competition on an open market, the only way a company can become the only provider is to be substantially better than the competition. But people invariably demand choice (a result of freedom) and competition always flourishes.
Monopolies on free markets are impossible and historically non-existent. Monopolies are established by governments. They do not occur in free societies.
Wrong again An "oligopoly" is defined as such only if it AFFECTS PRICES. The entire definition is schizophrenic. What is a few 2, 5, 10, 200?
The idea is based on the absurd notion that such a thing as a free market cartel could exist, but of course without the use of violence to prevent competition, cartels cannot exist.
There has never been a historical case of such an event. Its a paranoid Keynesian conspiracy theory.
I see you've degenerated to nothing more that sputtering out nonsensical mantras. And yet unlike everything else youve said, this statement does not in itself consitute a psychotic disorder so it is infact your most coherent moment yet.
This is a very positive affirmation that we are making progress treating your disorders.
Are you kidding? Rockefeller made his fortune through political engineering and using the government to destroy his competitors!
How is it that Exxon is the most profitable company in the world? The government is currently sitting on 55 million acres of reserves with trillions of barrels of oil. Enough for the entire world. But they only hand out licenses/leases to big companies who make large campaign contributions
Why do you think gas is so expensive? Besides the outrageous taxes of course
Um you do realize the majority of gas comes from OPEC and that its expensive because of various foreign policy factors. Look into the 73 and 79 oil crises if your interested.
Yeah because the Feds here are squatting on 10,000 years worth of oil in order to keep prices high. BTW: OPEC is a statist monopoly. The C in OPEC stands for countries.
>> various foreign policy factors.
Hmm.. You mean government interference?
>> 73 and 79 oil crises
Are you trying to make a case for me? Any idiot knows those were caused by government price controls, which are the opposite of a patent.
"ny idiot knows those were caused by government price controls,"
Yeah the embargo against the US for participating in the Yom Kippur War and the US loosing oil revenue because of the 1979 revolution were totally not relevant.
Wrong again there Dr. Goebbels. When prices are allowed to rise to meet the new level of supply and demand. Consumers adjust their spending patterns and by less, conserving the resource.
But when price controls are implemented, it
1. prevents the conservation of supply
2. forces a rush on the undervalued asset
3. Discourages people from producing more of something the government is forcing them to loose money on further decreasing supply and compounding the problem
This the part of the conversation where repeated mountains of dissonance have now pushed your delusions to the point of overload and you run away to hide in the corner. You now realize that everything you have said is completely wrong, while I have mearly been treating your issues by exposing you to basic economic law and common sense.
At this point, a human being would admit they were wrong and apologize for being a Nazi, but a you're a statist and all statists are cowards
We've already established youre an economic ignoramus.
It is impossible that a shortage of can occur on widely available consumer goods without being the result of totatitarian price controls.
This phenomena is played out in the United States every few years when there are hurricanes. Which always are immediately followed by shortages in gas, flashlights, food, batteries, etc because of "gouging" laws.
What I'm saying is that if you use violence to arfiticially lower prices you get shortages in supply (e.g. health care in any socialist dictatorship)
A decrease in supply does not lead to shortages on a free market. It leads to higher prices, forcing conservation of a resource that has become more scarce. The embargo (which is another terrorist action btw) may have caused the price increase, but price controls caused the shortage Exactly like the way they kill medicine
The philosophy is called Ordo Ab Chao. If you want to impose your order you must first cause a problem and then offer your order as a solution. In the case of health care they drove up the price by several orders of magnitude. Now they are offering their solution: More control and rationing of care. In addition to swindling trillions of dollars it is also a eugenics agenda aimed at population control.
>> Take for instance Kalashnikov whose company is now facing bankruptcy because the AK-47 is forged around the world.
Right and the purpose of a patent is to grant huge sums of money to failing companies and ass rape the sick and dying so that vast amounts of resources can be wasted even though the competition can do it better.
If you weren't a total sociopath you could see what is completely unethical and immoral about that.
Yeah exactly control. Control over what? Control over other people, preventing their free action (aka slavery) of trying to help the sick and dying. Check your dictionary for the definitions of evil, government and terrorism.
There is no evidence that patents protect the "little guy." On the contrary, the small inventor has to deal with navigating a mine field of patents and live under the constant threat of being sued for the act of trying to help people by offering a competing product.
Patents favor large institutions that can afford teams of lawyers.
Even if your argument were not invalid, everyone has a right to be free regardless of how big they are.
>> the best healthcare systems in the world their all single-payer
"Best" defined using what metric? If you define "best" as the one with the lowest quality health care, the longest wait times, and a total unavailability of surgery, then yeah I guess State hospitals are great. I mean just look at Walter Reed...
There's a reason everyone in Canada leaves the country when they need surgery just like people leave the US and go to Mexico when they need prescription drugs.
"Best" being the World Health Organization's rankings for healthcare by country and the problem of weight times only exists in Canada incidentally.
In most other single-payer countries the average weight time isn't that bad and it's still a good trade off for not having 45,000 people die each year for lack of healthcare.
>> "Best" being the World Health Organization's rankings
Oh so, you mean the best health care systems are the ones ranked as such by an international euginist/communist conspiracy like the world health organization? Hmmm.... I wonder if they have an agenda?
If your metric for "best" is the one endorsed by genocidal stalinist maniacs then you ought to be put in a mental institution.
>> bahahaha and you call non-anarchsits anti-social?
I'm not the one running around terrorising people at gun point. Youi're a cock sucking coward who doesn't even know what the term anti-social personality disorder is. If you did you would realize that you have one and it is synonymous with government.
>> the problem of weight times only exists in Canada incidentally.
Of course, two minutes of research looking up "Average wait wait times in Brazil, the UK, or Cuba" refutes this delusion.
Look, its obvious that you are very sick if you think that there is nothing wrong the existence of government. Have you ever considered getting treatment for your anti-social personality disorder?
"The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden." - World Health Organization.
lol Ironically most anarchist/libertarians I know are incredibly anti-social freaks who fear NWO and other dumb 9/11 conspiracies.
9/11 was carried out by the US government. That's an absolute fact. No suprise that you deny that though. Everything else that comes out of your mouth is completely mentally ill. Why should that be any different?
There are many corporations who pay zero taxes. If you notice Advocate is avoiding the biggest tax prize for the rich of them all: Capital Gains tax cuts. Most on the right want gains to be cut to zero--ZERO! Remember, many of the right get huge amounts of their income from capital gains. In effect, they would pay less taxes. The working classes are overtaxed on FICA, hidden taxes, like lowered wages, extra cost of health care, etc.
I dont mind hmos making money if it means more people get covered (as the tax break model) but in general their not..they constantly work to find a reason to reject covering operations even to loyal customers, and often deny people the right to healthcare.
How I am all for kicking the HMO's out of the American health care system. They are extensive unnecessary corporate bureaucracy who make money by finding any excuse to deny health care to people who pay them. We need to move to health care system more like ones in Scandinavia or the one in France. Both of which cheaper and more efficient than the American system and that has been well documented by the world health organization and the UN. Please try to find data to the opposite.
as far as the factbook... the cia does not use government sources for its information...besides the cia numbers are similar to the world development report numbers which also say the USA has a high infant mortality rate than Cuba and HDR does all their research themselves
my point on the schools is that it offers people a schooling option subsidized by the government, which obviously produces better outcomes because if we only had privatized some people would not be educated, with only privatized health insurance some people won't get coverage, 18000 ppl a year die due to no health insurance , do you really want to murder people for being too poor? (source: Institute of medecine of the national academics)
Students should be able to choose which schools to attend. Dollar values should be placed on their head and they should choose private or public schools.
Yes, some people should not attend college or should go to vocational schools.
Privatized health insurance doesn't harm anyone. Everyone gets healthcare, some people don't get insurance. There is a difference.
"murder for being too poor" - that's a false choice. People die in Canada unless they come to America for care.
Yest lets subsidize private education for the rich, yes please lets do that.
Seriously, you want to fix education lets change the way public schools are funded, so that they don't give a major advantage to wealthy. Attaching education to property taxes is on the dumbest ideas ever.
thank you so much for debunking these liberal mystics that get so much intellectual reputation from the media, but with closer inspection have very little "intellect" to offer.
I don't take a cuban gov't source for the infant mortality...I take it from the CIA world factbook... a source from the anti-socialized medecine gov't of the world for christ sakes...even they don't deny it. if you don't believe me... look it up.
Thats a flaw of the privatized system since the private companies are more interested in making the most money out of you possible ... the gov't isn't quite the same.. part of the reason why education in public schools are free and yet private schools you have to pay more per student for.
Public schools are not "free," people get taxed to pay for them.
I want doctors to make as much money as possible. If you are concerned about insurance companies making money, don't give businesses a tax break for providing healthcare.
and If socialized medecine is so bad, than why does even a third world country with socialized medecine like cuba have a lower infant mortality rate than the united states despite low levels of economic activity and low access to healthy meals and medical technology (due to US embargo).
Im not saying socialize medecine if free, Im saying its cheaper.if socialized medecine is not cheaper on a whole, than why does the United states spend such a high % of its gdp on healthcare.
and Howard Zinn's books are not common place in say Ap US history...I take the class and Howard Zinn is neglected..socialized medecine is far less expensive than the current system..the United states spends more on healthcare than any other nation in the world..and a higher % of the their gdp than any other country in the world.
First of all if you ever read the story of the sugar acts , they were not vehemently opposed until the country moved into the stamp act, since the stamp act was in effort to raise money rather than to regulate commerce, and the problem was not the idea of raising money but rather on the lack of consent from the colonial assemblies (taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION...not just taxation).
The social-democrates don't understand that a Wellfare State require a class of richs and super richs to exist. Without rich and super rich wellfare State collapse under debts.
Redistribution of wealth does not solve the problem of inequality of wealth at its origin. The richs are still more productive and earn more, the poors are still less productive and earn little. To create more equality we must enable everyone to be as productive as possible and let everyone earn the product of his labor (his property).
so Warren Buffett gets to pay 17.7% on his $46 million, while his secretary pays 30% on her $60,000. According to you people this is perfectly fair and just and right.
Why is it that the whenever I explain taxes on YouTube, the largest complainers are people from other countries that are ignorant of the American tax structure.
There are income taxes and capital gains taxes (selling long-term assets e.g. Stocks and Bonds). Since Warren Buffet makes his entire income on selling stocks and bonds, that particular income is taxed at the capital gains rate.
We're not going to make a separate tax rate for Buffet to punish everyone else who purchase stocks.
"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."
The rich "make" their money with tax breaks? According to Zinn, when the government ALLOWS you to keep the money that you've EARNED, you are "making" money. And he implies that this is a distasteful thing to do.
One of my history profs taught with two of Zinn's books. He also showed us Fahrenheit 9/11 in class.
of course the rich pay more taxes...its simple math. the point Zinn was making is that the richest households pay a lower percentage than the working class and middle class. if i make 10k/yr and pay 3k in taxes fine, but the man making 100k better be paying 30k. and the man making 1M per yr better be paying 300k. If you make 3x my salary and only pay 2x my taxes yes you pay more but seriously... take a math class and look up the word injustice, have a great one:)
HoffaInExile 1 year ago
""leftist textbook"
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
in 2010, forbes magazine named carlos slim as the richest man in the world and pointed out that assuming his networth didnt change, he could spend $1,000 a minute for 100 years before running out of money....capitalism rapes our world and keeps us in the dark ages...we could do so much yet we stay complacent with television and microwave dinners....we hav a plebeian culture.....
johnniefive80 1 year ago
also, anyone who can read knows there is an ongoing debate as to who should be taxed and how much...why else would politicians mention taxes or healthcare or other issues if they were not within the context of current problems?....also, you'd have to be an idiot not to see that the super rich use thier influence to keep the system running in a way that most benifits them....thier whole world, thier lifestyle only exists as long as the rest of us are perpetually the working poor
johnniefive80 1 year ago
that should go to improving our infastructure, education, eliminate poverty and provide FREE healthcare, rather
johnniefive80 1 year ago
in easiest terms, within our current system, people are able to amass rediculous amounts of money improve our infrastructure, education, eliminate poverty and provide FREE healthcare
johnniefive80 1 year ago
@RadioFreeWisconsin i agree with you that there is nothing wrong with honest bussiness or just "making more money" but zinn isnt talking about people thst just "make more money," when he says "the top" he means the super rich...in the easiests terms, with our current system, people are able to amass rediculous amounts of money that could and should be used to repair and improve our ibf.
johnniefive80 1 year ago
Taxes are a class phenomenon? Zinn didn't understand anything about economics. Class war in America? Perhaps in some Marxist fantasy version of history. I wish Zinn's books were not regarded as standard reading. What we need are Sowell's books as standard reading.
DarthMaul8065 1 year ago
mr. zinn shows a typical trait found in socialist intellectuals and social scientists- he sees everything as a conspiracy, as a plot by a group of people trying to secretly fuk another. the social sciences are full of this bullshit
goPistons06 1 year ago
@goPistons06
This is the most ignorant dumb response to anything I've ever seen.
LetsGoSnowBoarding 1 year ago
@goPistons06 lol wikileaks anyone?
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
Man this video is fucking awful.
theodorewolfgang 2 years ago
Even if the video is "awful", there is still some vlaue in seeing just how completely disconnected from reality a frequently referenced nutjob like Zinn really is.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Why do people get so angry when they hear that someone else is making alot of money? How does it hurt me if someone else is making money? Even if I'm not making anything, my situation does not become worse by someone else making money? Rich people do not make money by taking through force (that is what government does), rich people make money by producing products that other people want to buy. What is so wrong with that?
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago 2
Your forgetting that those products in one way or another better every one. The people whom buy them see value in the product. Job creation for those whom are paid to either make, ship or supply said products.
jsh78mang 2 years ago
@RadioFreeWisconsin I couldn't agree with you more! The problem comes when people who feel they being treated unfairly because of their socio-economic situation want something done about it. So the politicians jump in to capitalize on people's anger (jealousy) and say it's so and so's fault and if you just give them more power, they'll take care of the problem. Of course we all know that never happens. The war on poverty has been going on since the sixties with little or no progress.
mikebri527 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RadioFreeWisconsin "How does it hurt me if someone else is making money? "
Competition for resources. Maybe you should take an econ class or something.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
"If [government] would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing."
-Andrew Jackson
CountArtha 2 years ago
Zinn better look out, that fool is rich to me. I like how he says "super rich" to exclude himself. When I was a kid, any one who was middle class was rich to me. its relative, not absolute.
nothingisgreener 2 years ago
What all this rhetoric against "the rich" disguises is that the income tax is most harmful to those who need to continue to earn an income. Those who are still working for a living are disproportionately hurt, rather than those rich enough to stop working and live off savings. Income tax is anti-middle class.
herbs814 2 years ago
How does one MAKE money on the "tax structure." Taxes do nothing but TAKE money.
Zinn is an ass hat.
lnd3005 2 years ago
"Zinn is an ass hat."
Hwahwahwahwaaaa!!! I haven't heard that insult in ages! It gave me a good, hearty, lumberjack laugh. Thank you kindly, sir.
BboyMindless 2 years ago
You're wrong on socialized health care. We spend more per person than Germany already. So government health care would be rationed. Costs would go down. It is an idealogical argument sure but universal health care most certainly would be cheaper than the patch work hybrid system we currently have. Health care also limits free trade as people get very angry when they lose their jobs and their health care. Universal care would at least ease tensions from job losses and limit protectionist populism
moderatesunited 3 years ago
Ah yes, our expensive healthcare would cost less when we add an expensive inefficient bureaucracy to it.
HowTheWorldWorks 3 years ago
>> So government health care would be rationed. Costs would go down.
You're an idiot. There is nothing that the government can do to benefit society. That's an absolute economic fact. Everything the state does is detrimental to society. Stop what you are doing right now and go pick up a copy of "Economics in one lesson."
The reason health care is so expensive is because the government got involved with the FDA, the AMA, patents, requiring a prescription, etc. And now you want to make it worse
icfnord 2 years ago 2
My points are still valid. No country has free market health care. Costs would go down with rationing. Pick up a Paul Krugman book or read The Economist Newspaper's extensive articles on health care policy. You tell voters that you're ending Medicare, Medicaid and see how far you get (hint no votes).
moderatesunited 2 years ago
>> My points are still valid.
No the aren't. All arguments for the existence of government are founded in mental illness. Your point is invalidated by both ethics and economics.
>> No country has free market health care
That's because there isn't an inch of dirt on this planet that is not under the boot of a communist dictatorship. Just because something is normative does not make it correct. Argumentum ad populum is a typical communist fallacy.
icfnord 2 years ago
>> Costs would go down with rationing.
Another economic fallacy. Price controls prevent competition, establish monopolies and INCREASE PRICES. Just look at what has happened with cable tv and electricity.
>> Pick up a Paul Krugman
I'm actually well versed in Krugman, Marx, Keynes and all other forms of Nazi propaganda. Why don't you try reading Mises, Rothbard, and Hazlitt, starting with "Economics in One Lesson" and "Economic calculation in the socialist common wealth"
icfnord 2 years ago 2
"No country has free market health care." As if that's a justification for making our health care system less free? What goes down with government-coerced rationing is freedom and quality. Better to have a health care system based on freedom and choices.
Can't afford something? The answer to affordability is personal responsibility and voluntary charity, NOT government coercion, taxation, and redistribution.
herbs814 2 years ago
Then why do single-payer systems pay much less for healthcare then the US while covering more people?
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
The reason health care is so expensive in the US is because the government restricts the supply or doctors and med schools. On top of that, they force insurance companies to cover everyone in the same class of coverage. Imagine how expensive auto insurance would be if the government mandated that every clunker be covered at the same level of coverage as a Ferrari. People wouldn't be able to afford auto insurance either.
The worst is thing though is patents on drugs...
icfnord 2 years ago
Although I sorta agree on patents the whole "cover everyone the same" thing is completely untrue.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Get the government out of heathcare and prices will return to their pre Roosevelt-II levels (i.e. next to nothing). Abolish the state entirely and the world will have peace and prosperity beyond anything they could possibly imagine.
icfnord 2 years ago
Yeah if you look at the best healthcare systems in the world their all single-payer and all don't cost a lot sorry.
Well Abolishing the state would make sense if we weren't 200 years into it :)
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
How is the insurance thing untrue? I happen to have spent several years writing software in the insurance industry and it is true. People with chronic diseases pay the same amount as those people who go decades without so much as a physical. It's absolutely true. If you deny it the only thing you are proving is that you are a raving psychotic. The facts are still going to be the same.
icfnord 2 years ago
Um you said they "cover everyone in the same class of coverage" which is completely untrue.
There are multitudes of plans available and if it were true congress wouldn't be considering taxing the "Cadillac plans" to cover the new healthcare bill.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> you said
No I didn't I said a perfectly healthy individual will pay the same rate as one who has a chronic disease, which means that the vast majority of healthy people are paying more than their share, not to mention that 95% of the cost of insurance is filling out paperwork and complying with asinine government regulations.
icfnord 2 years ago
Well that depends on their PLAN.
Just because someone is healthy doesn't mean anything what matters is the insurence plan they picked.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> weren't 200 years into it
We're a lot farther into it than that. Government has been around for at least 10,000 years. Furthermore, that isn't an argument. Just because something exists doesn't mean that its ideal. Abolishing evil from the world always makes sense. The word "anarchist" simply describes an individual who is mentally healthy (ie. one who does not have an anti-social personality disorder).
icfnord 2 years ago
I meant America's government.
The point is the state provides a lot of essential services that NGOs and the free market wouldn't necessarily provide or provide much worse.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
The state provides services?
That defies basic economics. The price system guarantees that if people need something there will be a market for it, which creates a supply. Try looking up the phrase "marginal utility."
You never need to ROB people at gun point to get them to pay for things they already want and need. Terrorism (a.k.a. government) is only needed when they don't want what you are pushing.
icfnord 2 years ago
"The state provides services?"
Do you honestly right now sitting in front of your computer believe that the internet is the work of the free market?
Do you think the water that comes through your pipes is the work of the free market?
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Uh no the water comes from the government. That's why its poison. On a free market they would be out of business.
icfnord 2 years ago
"That's why its poison"
So if you drink the water from your faucet right now your going to be poisoned?
Are you really that delusional?
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Fluoride is a deadly toxin. So is clorine, arsenic, prozac, et al. All of them are in our government water here. That's why no one uses tap water for anything other than the toliet despite the fact that they have already been forced to pay for it by sausage smoking Stalinists like you.
You're projecting. You want to see someone who is delusional, I suggest you look in the mirror.
icfnord 2 years ago
"Fluoride is a deadly toxin. So is clorine, arsenic, prozac, et al. All of them are in our government water here."
watch?v=GjL9g3s6Fro
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Not really sure what a clip from a trite and asinine movie directed by a jackbooted Bolshevik is supposed to prove.
FYI: I don't know where you went to school, but Dr. Strangelove is part of the state indoctrination program at every government school I've ever heard of. I've already been forced to watch it several times.
Here's some therapy for you though:
watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo
icfnord 2 years ago
"I don't know where you went to school, but Dr. Strangelove is part of the state indoctrination program"
What is this evil program that dares use hollywood movies to indoctrinate people called?
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
"What is this evil program that dares use hollywood movies to indoctrinate people called? "
It's called the Mental Illness Installation System. Or more euphemistically, "public" schools. See plank 10 of the communist manifesto for further details.
icfnord 2 years ago
"See plank 10 of the communist manifesto for further details."
Sorry to break to you but public schools have existed a pretty long time....before karl marx was born even.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
"Um no the water comes from the government. That's why its poison."
So when you shower, you are in fact being exposed to continuous poisonous water as opposed to clean regulated water?
Jesus christ your a lost cause.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> So when you shower, you are in fact being exposed to continuous poisonous water
I'm not because I have a filter for the house plus an additional filter for the shower. Of course, if you could pull your head out of your ass for half a millisecond you might realize that chlorine @ shower temperatures becomes a gas and is a leading cause of heart disease, the second most deadly disease in the world after government.
icfnord 2 years ago
"chlorine @ shower temperatures"
Yeah I mean look at them millions upon millions of autopsies ever year linking heart disease to excessive chlorine levels oh wait the government censors all those too.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
"Yeah I mean look at them millions upon millions of autopsies ever year linking heart disease to excessive chlorine levels oh wait the government censors all those too."
A quick search for "chlorine and heart disease" in Google produces 300,000 results. no need to continue denying every fact that is mentioned. We've already established that you are completely psychotic and are going to deny everything that is true.
icfnord 2 years ago
Oh cool a bunch of alternative medicine sites with no peer reviewed articles.
Thanks google.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
You are completely delusional. I found hundreds of journal articles within a matter of seconds. Here are a few:
The Negative Health Effects of Chlorine
Calcium, Chlorine and Heart Disease.
icfnord 2 years ago
That might be because of your google cache but regardless neither article or source actually shows evidence (i.e. millions upon millions of autopsies ever year showing large amounts of chlorine associated with heart disease).
Seriously grow up.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> Although I sorta agree on patents
Sort of? Try paying $5000 a month for prescription drugs just so some jackass like Merck can protect his state granted extortion racket and then see how you feel about it.
Anyone who thinks that Stalinism is a good idea should contract cancer. Then you can get a taste of the suffering you have inflicted on others and maybe you could learn some empathy you totalitarian twat.
icfnord 2 years ago
I mean in the sense that the patents are way too long. Drug prices are a completely different topic.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> Drug prices are a completely different topic.
Right. Because you don't want to deal with the fact that terrorist monopolies have made the situation worse. Since the high cost of drugs (because of patents) is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) health care problems.
But you don't care about that, because you haven't got the slightest concern whether or not people can actually afford health care. This is about you excercising power, not the livelyhood of others.
icfnord 2 years ago
Patents have very little to do with drug prices.
"because you haven't got the slightest concern whether or not people can actually afford health care."
yeah way to be completely social and not jump to conclusions based on no information....
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> Patents have very little to do with drug prices.
Really. I suppose thats why "generics" are less than ten dollars and the average price of of patent medication is $450.
You've already established that you are a raving psychotic. No need to continue spouting nonsensical delusions.
icfnord 2 years ago
most generic drugs are generic because the chemical is easy to reproduce or highly abundant resulting in lower prices while the converse is true with patents.
Patents for drugs follow a basic trend and prices are more determined by supply and demand then patent status.
Basic econ
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Wow you're fucking sick!!!!!
The word "generic" as defined by the FDA means no longer protected by a PATENT, jackass. Something anyone who isn't psychotic could verify in five seconds using the internet.
icfnord 2 years ago
"The word "generic...""
Nice try with the strawman argument, now why don't you run along and go practice for the next staged terror attack :)
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Again, like I said verifiable to anyone who is not a raving psychotic. You are a raving psychotic which is why reality makes no sense to you, but anyone who is sane can easily verify that the term "generic" as used by the FDA means "not covered by patent"
Seek treatment.
icfnord 2 years ago
"used by the FDA means "not covered by patent"
Because I clearly argued otherwise.
Seriously you have terrible reading comprehension or you are again using a strawman even though I never once claimed what certifies the term "generic".
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
"I never once claimed what certifies the term generic"
Really?
"most generic drugs ARE GENERIC BECAUSE the chemical is easy to reproduce or highly abundant resulting in lower prices"
Why don't you surprise me and say something that isn't completely mentally ill. It would be a nice change of pace.
icfnord 2 years ago
Yes they don't have a patent because they are easy to reproduce are you really that dense?
you know what forget it.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
"are you really that dense? "
Well. It's nice to see that at least we have cured you of the psychotic disorder that "I never once claimed what certifies the term generic" One down, one hundred more to go.
You've got that backwards though Adolf. Like all schizophrenic Stalinists, you've completely reversed cause and effect. It's not that generics are not covered by patents because they are easy produce. They are easy to produce because they are not covered by patents.
icfnord 2 years ago
"They are easy to produce because they are not covered by patents."
It works both ways, do you really think paclitaxel is super easy to produce? And on that note do you think Sildenafil (or viagra) is easy to reproduce because it's not patented? (Sildenafil is patented solely by Pfizer)
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> do you really think
I wouldn't know, I'm not a biochemist and unlike you I'm not a big enough jackass to claim authority over things I know nothing about.
I do know however that a patent is a monopolistic act of TERRORISM committed by a government on behalf of another organization so that that organization can prevent competition and charge extortionist prices.
You schizophrenic raving is self-contradictory. If its so difficult to compete with why does it need a patent?
icfnord 2 years ago
I'm generally against patents (or restrictive patents anyway) but patents serve an important purpose of giving the author control (though it does seem uneeded for drugs.)
Take for instance Kalashnikov whose company is now facing bankruptcy because the AK-47 is forged around the world.
The main point is, patents have little to do with drug prices as opposed to other things like supply.
That's why drugs like viagra are cheap as hell even though only Pfizer is allowed to distribute it.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> as opposed to other things like supply.
What? The whole purpose of a patent is to restrict supply!
Viagra was VERY expensive when it first came out. Pfizer only lowered their prices when their terrorist actions failed to prevent competition.
Their monopoly failed because both Eli Lilly (cialis) and Bayer (levitra) followed with similar products, but with different chemicals (which made the Pfizer monopoly invalid). Pfizer was unable to sustain patent rates.
Get your facts straight.
icfnord 2 years ago
"Get your facts straight. "
bahaha Sildenafil (viagra), Tadalafil (Cialis) and Vardenafil (levitra) are 3 completely different drugs. They aren't the same drug under different names.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> They aren't the same drug under different names.
No shit jackass. That's exactly what I said. That's why the Pfizer patent failed you fucking psychotic.
icfnord 2 years ago
Pfizer is the only company that can manufacture Sildenafil are you retarded? The patent very much did not fail.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> Pfizer is the only company that can manufacture Sildenafil
Which is why other companies produce DIFFERENT DRUGS treating ED.
The monopoly on treating ED failed. Which is why Pfizer had to lower their prices.
icfnord 2 years ago
Yeah but they are still the sole distributor of it so the patent is still in effect. Your entire argument against patents failed.
Oh look now your learning about Oligopoly how cute :)
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> So you would have large companies steal
"Steal?" Like everything else in your psychotic wet dreams, you've got that completely backwards. Ideas are not property. A patent however, is stealing. If one girl puts her hair in a pony tail, she has stolen nothing, but if she uses violence to prevent other girls from putting their hair in pony tails, she has stolen something. She has stolen their natural right to compete and made the other girls her slaves.
icfnord 2 years ago
I think somewhere you got the idea that patents last forever....
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Time periods on patents?
What relevence does that have on ANYTHING?!
If patents are valid, why do they expire? No one says that after a few years you no longer own your body or your t-shirt.
Ask someone if they would prefer to be a slave for a few decades or for their entire life obviously they would choose a shorter term. But that doesn't validate slavery, especially for people who are sick and dying and can't afford to wait for a monopoly to expire in order to afford health care.
icfnord 2 years ago
>> still the sole distributor of it so the patent is still in effect.
But of no value since the patent has been sidestepped by the invention of similar but not identical products (which fortunately is still legal). The patent (which is an attempt to establish a monopoly through violence) FAILED, forcing them to either lower their prices to a competitive level or loose the market completely to the competition.
icfnord 2 years ago
That's not the point of a patent bro.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
"Oligopoly"
Oligopolies do not exist. As long as there is free competition on an open market, the only way a company can become the only provider is to be substantially better than the competition. But people invariably demand choice (a result of freedom) and competition always flourishes.
Monopolies on free markets are impossible and historically non-existent. Monopolies are established by governments. They do not occur in free societies.
icfnord 2 years ago
"Oligopolies do not exist."
"Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors control about 80% of the beer industry."
"on free markets are impossible"
So are you trying to make the claim that Standard Oil profited because of the government?
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors control about 80% of the beer industry.
And how many competing brands of beer are there in the world? MILLIONS.
icfnord 2 years ago
An Oligopoly only implies that there are a few dominant brands not that there only exist a few.
Christ it's like I have educate you.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
"An oligopoly...blah blah blah"
Wrong again An "oligopoly" is defined as such only if it AFFECTS PRICES. The entire definition is schizophrenic. What is a few 2, 5, 10, 200?
The idea is based on the absurd notion that such a thing as a free market cartel could exist, but of course without the use of violence to prevent competition, cartels cannot exist.
There has never been a historical case of such an event. Its a paranoid Keynesian conspiracy theory.
BTW I have a Masters in Economics jack
icfnord 2 years ago
"BTW I have a Masters in Economics jack"
bahahahahahahahahaha
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> bahahahahahahahahaha
I see you've degenerated to nothing more that sputtering out nonsensical mantras. And yet unlike everything else youve said, this statement does not in itself consitute a psychotic disorder so it is infact your most coherent moment yet.
This is a very positive affirmation that we are making progress treating your disorders.
icfnord 2 years ago
"Are you factoring in the cost of taxes chucko?"
Yeah there still lower.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Are you kidding? Rockefeller made his fortune through political engineering and using the government to destroy his competitors!
How is it that Exxon is the most profitable company in the world? The government is currently sitting on 55 million acres of reserves with trillions of barrels of oil. Enough for the entire world. But they only hand out licenses/leases to big companies who make large campaign contributions
Why do you think gas is so expensive? Besides the outrageous taxes of course
icfnord 2 years ago
Um you do realize the majority of gas comes from OPEC and that its expensive because of various foreign policy factors. Look into the 73 and 79 oil crises if your interested.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> the majority of gas ... OPEC
Yeah because the Feds here are squatting on 10,000 years worth of oil in order to keep prices high. BTW: OPEC is a statist monopoly. The C in OPEC stands for countries.
>> various foreign policy factors.
Hmm.. You mean government interference?
>> 73 and 79 oil crises
Are you trying to make a case for me? Any idiot knows those were caused by government price controls, which are the opposite of a patent.
icfnord 2 years ago
"ny idiot knows those were caused by government price controls,"
Yeah the embargo against the US for participating in the Yom Kippur War and the US loosing oil revenue because of the 1979 revolution were totally not relevant.
Christ you're pathetic.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> Yeah the embargo
Wrong again there Dr. Goebbels. When prices are allowed to rise to meet the new level of supply and demand. Consumers adjust their spending patterns and by less, conserving the resource.
But when price controls are implemented, it
1. prevents the conservation of supply
2. forces a rush on the undervalued asset
3. Discourages people from producing more of something the government is forcing them to loose money on further decreasing supply and compounding the problem
icfnord 2 years ago
You know what forget it your literally too psychotic to reason with.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
> You know
This the part of the conversation where repeated mountains of dissonance have now pushed your delusions to the point of overload and you run away to hide in the corner. You now realize that everything you have said is completely wrong, while I have mearly been treating your issues by exposing you to basic economic law and common sense.
At this point, a human being would admit they were wrong and apologize for being a Nazi, but a you're a statist and all statists are cowards
icfnord 2 years ago
>> Yeah the embargo
We've already established youre an economic ignoramus.
It is impossible that a shortage of can occur on widely available consumer goods without being the result of totatitarian price controls.
This phenomena is played out in the United States every few years when there are hurricanes. Which always are immediately followed by shortages in gas, flashlights, food, batteries, etc because of "gouging" laws.
Recommended reading:
"Four Thousand Years of Price Control"
icfnord 2 years ago
So your saying price controls made a bigger impact then the embargo? Do you not understand cause and effect or are you just retarded?
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
> saying price controls
What I'm saying is that if you use violence to arfiticially lower prices you get shortages in supply (e.g. health care in any socialist dictatorship)
A decrease in supply does not lead to shortages on a free market. It leads to higher prices, forcing conservation of a resource that has become more scarce. The embargo (which is another terrorist action btw) may have caused the price increase, but price controls caused the shortage Exactly like the way they kill medicine
icfnord 2 years ago
> saying price controls
Part II:
The philosophy is called Ordo Ab Chao. If you want to impose your order you must first cause a problem and then offer your order as a solution. In the case of health care they drove up the price by several orders of magnitude. Now they are offering their solution: More control and rationing of care. In addition to swindling trillions of dollars it is also a eugenics agenda aimed at population control.
icfnord 2 years ago
>> Take for instance Kalashnikov whose company is now facing bankruptcy because the AK-47 is forged around the world.
Right and the purpose of a patent is to grant huge sums of money to failing companies and ass rape the sick and dying so that vast amounts of resources can be wasted even though the competition can do it better.
If you weren't a total sociopath you could see what is completely unethical and immoral about that.
icfnord 2 years ago
No the purpose is to give the author control.
Without patents giant corporations can just steal inventions and the inventor will go broke.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Yeah exactly control. Control over what? Control over other people, preventing their free action (aka slavery) of trying to help the sick and dying. Check your dictionary for the definitions of evil, government and terrorism.
icfnord 2 years ago
So you would rather have large companies replicate inventions, making the inventors go broke while corporate profits are maximized?
Control works both ways.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> Control works both ways.
Wrong again there Hitler. Control works one way:
Between the person who has the control (i.e. the terrorist) and the person being contolled (i.e. the victim).
icfnord 2 years ago
So you would have large companies steal and distribute inventions without the inventor's consent?
Yes or No.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
large companies?
There is no evidence that patents protect the "little guy." On the contrary, the small inventor has to deal with navigating a mine field of patents and live under the constant threat of being sued for the act of trying to help people by offering a competing product.
Patents favor large institutions that can afford teams of lawyers.
Even if your argument were not invalid, everyone has a right to be free regardless of how big they are.
icfnord 2 years ago
You do realize that in a world without patents there be like a million Robert Kearns right?
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Why if universal health care is a bad idea does evil "stalinist" canada have lower drug prices then the states?
FYI, conspiracy theories are the duct tape of ignorance.
soulinite 2 years ago
>> lower drug prices then the states?
Are you factoring in the cost of taxes chucko?
icfnord 2 years ago
>> the best healthcare systems in the world their all single-payer
"Best" defined using what metric? If you define "best" as the one with the lowest quality health care, the longest wait times, and a total unavailability of surgery, then yeah I guess State hospitals are great. I mean just look at Walter Reed...
There's a reason everyone in Canada leaves the country when they need surgery just like people leave the US and go to Mexico when they need prescription drugs.
icfnord 2 years ago
"Best" being the World Health Organization's rankings for healthcare by country and the problem of weight times only exists in Canada incidentally.
In most other single-payer countries the average weight time isn't that bad and it's still a good trade off for not having 45,000 people die each year for lack of healthcare.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> "Best" being the World Health Organization's rankings
Oh so, you mean the best health care systems are the ones ranked as such by an international euginist/communist conspiracy like the world health organization? Hmmm.... I wonder if they have an agenda?
If your metric for "best" is the one endorsed by genocidal stalinist maniacs then you ought to be put in a mental institution.
icfnord 2 years ago
"euginist/communist conspiracy like the world health organization?"
bahahaha and you call non-anarchsits anti-social? Oh please do go on with thier evil communist plans I'm all ears.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> bahahaha and you call non-anarchsits anti-social?
I'm not the one running around terrorising people at gun point. Youi're a cock sucking coward who doesn't even know what the term anti-social personality disorder is. If you did you would realize that you have one and it is synonymous with government.
icfnord 2 years ago
Man you certainly have a detailed knowledge of anti-social personality disorder :)
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> the problem of weight times only exists in Canada incidentally.
Of course, two minutes of research looking up "Average wait wait times in Brazil, the UK, or Cuba" refutes this delusion.
Look, its obvious that you are very sick if you think that there is nothing wrong the existence of government. Have you ever considered getting treatment for your anti-social personality disorder?
icfnord 2 years ago
"The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden." - World Health Organization.
lol Ironically most anarchist/libertarians I know are incredibly anti-social freaks who fear NWO and other dumb 9/11 conspiracies.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
>> dumb 9/11 conspiracies.
9/11 was carried out by the US government. That's an absolute fact. No suprise that you deny that though. Everything else that comes out of your mouth is completely mentally ill. Why should that be any different?
icfnord 2 years ago
"9/11 was carried out by the US government."
"9/11 was carried out by the US government."
"9/11 was carried out by the US government."
- icfnord
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
zinn is a useless socialist. No more historians like this one.
N Korea for him!
AlanCom1 3 years ago
There are many corporations who pay zero taxes. If you notice Advocate is avoiding the biggest tax prize for the rich of them all: Capital Gains tax cuts. Most on the right want gains to be cut to zero--ZERO! Remember, many of the right get huge amounts of their income from capital gains. In effect, they would pay less taxes. The working classes are overtaxed on FICA, hidden taxes, like lowered wages, extra cost of health care, etc.
sincereradical 3 years ago
I dont mind hmos making money if it means more people get covered (as the tax break model) but in general their not..they constantly work to find a reason to reject covering operations even to loyal customers, and often deny people the right to healthcare.
Monkeyrunky 3 years ago
So you want to replace HMOs with a government bureaucracy? You're not thinking clearly.
People from Canada get rationed care and come to America to avoid waiting in lines.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
How I am all for kicking the HMO's out of the American health care system. They are extensive unnecessary corporate bureaucracy who make money by finding any excuse to deny health care to people who pay them. We need to move to health care system more like ones in Scandinavia or the one in France. Both of which cheaper and more efficient than the American system and that has been well documented by the world health organization and the UN. Please try to find data to the opposite.
side1981 3 years ago
as far as the factbook... the cia does not use government sources for its information...besides the cia numbers are similar to the world development report numbers which also say the USA has a high infant mortality rate than Cuba and HDR does all their research themselves
Monkeyrunky 3 years ago
Again, Cuba is self-reporting. Are you seriously claiming that the CIA is in the hospital rooms of Cuba?
Advocate1234 3 years ago
my point on the schools is that it offers people a schooling option subsidized by the government, which obviously produces better outcomes because if we only had privatized some people would not be educated, with only privatized health insurance some people won't get coverage, 18000 ppl a year die due to no health insurance , do you really want to murder people for being too poor? (source: Institute of medecine of the national academics)
Monkeyrunky 3 years ago
Students should be able to choose which schools to attend. Dollar values should be placed on their head and they should choose private or public schools.
Yes, some people should not attend college or should go to vocational schools.
Privatized health insurance doesn't harm anyone. Everyone gets healthcare, some people don't get insurance. There is a difference.
"murder for being too poor" - that's a false choice. People die in Canada unless they come to America for care.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Yest lets subsidize private education for the rich, yes please lets do that.
Seriously, you want to fix education lets change the way public schools are funded, so that they don't give a major advantage to wealthy. Attaching education to property taxes is on the dumbest ideas ever.
side1981 3 years ago
That's a blatant misuse of the term "murder".
Guncriminal 3 years ago
thank you so much for debunking these liberal mystics that get so much intellectual reputation from the media, but with closer inspection have very little "intellect" to offer.
davidngo4415 3 years ago 2
Howard Zinn is 86. I'd doubt he'd live to teach the next generation.
Gettinghitonattheban 3 years ago
His People's history has already taught the next generation.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Which is just great news.
side1981 3 years ago
take the phillips exeter academy .. they spend 63000 per student a year... the public schools spend about 9000 a year for the typical student.
Monkeyrunky 3 years ago
Sure...you can find certain schools that cost more.
But, you'll find other private schools that cost much less on average.
Much less.
Moreover, the outcomes are better.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
I don't take a cuban gov't source for the infant mortality...I take it from the CIA world factbook... a source from the anti-socialized medecine gov't of the world for christ sakes...even they don't deny it. if you don't believe me... look it up.
Monkeyrunky 3 years ago
I know. It is self-reported. CIA is not sneaking into hospitals and counting. They are just taking the data that Cuba reports.
I don't trust a government that has no free press to accurately report infant mortality.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
the flaw being the gas cost model.
Monkeyrunky 3 years ago
Thats a flaw of the privatized system since the private companies are more interested in making the most money out of you possible ... the gov't isn't quite the same.. part of the reason why education in public schools are free and yet private schools you have to pay more per student for.
Monkeyrunky 3 years ago
Private schools cost less on average per student.
Public schools are not "free," people get taxed to pay for them.
I want doctors to make as much money as possible. If you are concerned about insurance companies making money, don't give businesses a tax break for providing healthcare.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
and If socialized medecine is so bad, than why does even a third world country with socialized medecine like cuba have a lower infant mortality rate than the united states despite low levels of economic activity and low access to healthy meals and medical technology (due to US embargo).
Monkeyrunky 3 years ago
Cuba doesn't have a lower infant mortality.
The fact of the matter is that Cuba self-reports its data, making it suspect to begin with.
But, it also has a different definition of infant mortality. It doesn't count death if the child is alive for a few days after birth.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
Im not saying socialize medecine if free, Im saying its cheaper.if socialized medecine is not cheaper on a whole, than why does the United states spend such a high % of its gdp on healthcare.
Monkeyrunky 3 years ago
Because we don't pay individually...insurance companies pay for us.
If auto insurance paid for you gas, would you care about the price? No. So what would happen? The price would rise.
Eventually gas would cost $100 per gallon.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
The liberal media bias is so apparantly obvious in this video.
RacheyG91 3 years ago
and Howard Zinn's books are not common place in say Ap US history...I take the class and Howard Zinn is neglected..socialized medecine is far less expensive than the current system..the United states spends more on healthcare than any other nation in the world..and a higher % of the their gdp than any other country in the world.
Monkeyrunky 3 years ago
It is commonplace. I hear people tell me all the time that it is commonplace.
And socialized medicine is not less expensive. That would be like saying you can make it colder outside by rearranging the numbers on a thermometer.
The costs are still there, socialized medicine just rations the care.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
I live in Massacusetts and The People's History is used at a text book in History Class. It's horrible.
RacheyG91 3 years ago
You should ask your teacher why you use such a biased textbook.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
First of all if you ever read the story of the sugar acts , they were not vehemently opposed until the country moved into the stamp act, since the stamp act was in effort to raise money rather than to regulate commerce, and the problem was not the idea of raising money but rather on the lack of consent from the colonial assemblies (taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION...not just taxation).
Monkeyrunky 3 years ago
Your argument is so hopelessly circular.
If they weren't opposed to the actual tax to begin with, why would they care about consent.
Do I need your consent to bake you birthday cakes everyday for free?
People don't ask for consent for things they enjoy.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
The social-democrates don't understand that a Wellfare State require a class of richs and super richs to exist. Without rich and super rich wellfare State collapse under debts.
anarkoFred 3 years ago
Redistribution of wealth does not solve the problem of inequality of wealth at its origin. The richs are still more productive and earn more, the poors are still less productive and earn little. To create more equality we must enable everyone to be as productive as possible and let everyone earn the product of his labor (his property).
anarkoFred 3 years ago
so Warren Buffett gets to pay 17.7% on his $46 million, while his secretary pays 30% on her $60,000. According to you people this is perfectly fair and just and right.
KentAllard 3 years ago
Why is it that the whenever I explain taxes on YouTube, the largest complainers are people from other countries that are ignorant of the American tax structure.
There are income taxes and capital gains taxes (selling long-term assets e.g. Stocks and Bonds). Since Warren Buffet makes his entire income on selling stocks and bonds, that particular income is taxed at the capital gains rate.
We're not going to make a separate tax rate for Buffet to punish everyone else who purchase stocks.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
just make the tax rate progressive.
KentAllard 3 years ago
Draw me a picture of how this works...if you make a lot of money in the stock market, you get taxed at a higher rate, if not you don't.
Please tell me that is not what you're talking about...because that will tank the market.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."
KentAllard 3 years ago
Okay, again, you didn't explain how you would make it "progressive" without tanking the market.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
The rich "make" their money with tax breaks? According to Zinn, when the government ALLOWS you to keep the money that you've EARNED, you are "making" money. And he implies that this is a distasteful thing to do.
One of my history profs taught with two of Zinn's books. He also showed us Fahrenheit 9/11 in class.
reidksmith 3 years ago