How the hell can you compare Rush Limbaugh, who makes up crap out of his peanut sized brain, to a left leaning show you that presents facts you don't agree with
@dmcarefuldriver They are all cointelpro created by the globalists for the agenda to pit us against each other. Unger is definetely a shill has been from the beginning. Don't listen to any of them.
No lets tax the people that don't have money, lets tax the poor so they can't even affored food. The main tax that should be being up their is large Corporations pay 30% but with loop wholes in fact most only pay up to 10 percent! Also as for the Rich they also do the same things corporations do and that's to get around it via loop wholes bullshit. You know the people building and that makes this country is US people with low income jobs under 60k and we get taxed to hell! Tax alcohol & the fed!
...This means capitalist societies are not really free. It's not only the government that exerts power and diminishes freedom. The government can however restrain the power of business over workers and consumers, which is the trade-off social-democrats are in favor of, because government leaders are at least elected, business leaders are not.
On redistribution I would like to point out that every business does it. You put in your effort as a worker, the person who owns the business owns your produce and gives you back in wages only part of the value you added, keeping the rest for his own profit...
About government catering to special interests: This can probably not be prevented, but one big problem with that is that in the US, only corporate lobbies seem very powerful, whereas in the Netherlands for example, strong unions, lobbies for legalised prostitution (= defending sex workers), subsidised environmental groups and anti-business political parties in can all compete for influence with corporate lobbies.
The way Americans complain about government-run services is somewhat irrational. Europeans complain the same way about everything that was privatised. In Australia, privatization has often worked, in much of Europe, public services are good. You really have to judge this case by case basis. And besides, how can you expect the government to be run well if you choose leaders who don't want it too?
Why do you think income inequality is supposed to be good? The function of the price mechanism is to balance supply and demand. If prices of productive factors (meaning income) are very high or low, that means resources are being misallocated. So income disparities reveal disfunction and inefficiency in a market, whereas prices/incomes approaching levels of equality would indicate that much less reallocation is needed. Free market believers should want equality, as Adam Smith did.
Tyt never claimed to be anything other than what U see on the show; so-called progressive liberals. At the same time they slam Obama on a regular basis. Other news shows claim to be balanced yet they always stand by their elected guys.
A rational person would have to consider the small # of views you've gotten on this vid after months of posting;also taking into account your 'like/dislike' ratio; then compare it to the success of TYT; leaving U looking & sounding pretty stupid
Oh wait he is. What an idiot. So the video goes from, Oh look at these poor uninsured people who lost their job, to, Lets get rid of all insurance. You don't go to the hospital and pick out expensive treatements. But he is saying that's the way health insurance works. No it's not, they give you the medicine you need, not an expensive wine or treat.
@EJ9832 While not the brightest on other matters this fellow has an excellent grasp of economics, or as you only seem to have a grasp on a bong, whiskey bottle and your landlords cock to pump him so you don't get thrown out of your government housing. So stop spamming and go somewhere else, after all, you've been mercilessly destroyed in the comments. I would think you'd want to stop punishing yourself by looking like such a fool so consistently
It's almost as if he is arguing against any type of insurance whatsoever with his ridiculous comparisons to food and gas. Those are predictable relatively cheaper.
He basically defeats his own argument because universal healthcare would cover those people where as leaving it in the hands of companies they will continue to do this to people.
God John Stossel is such an idiot. "Why not just get steak instead of burgers, the insurance company is paying."
Except who pays they insurance company? You are the one ultimately paying the high price in premiums and deductibles.
If he had a real argument he would offer an alternative. Instead all he does in the video is whine that "you are tied to your job." Ya of course your finances are tied to your job. All the more reason we should have an affordable public option for these people!
The answer to your question of why everyone should pay to cover the sick. Everyone will get sick at some time. So it is only a matter of time before the healthy switch places with the sick, what then you would want when you become sick and can't afford skyrocketing premiums?
" Is that why private insurance covers lot more people at a fraction of the cost?"
Bullshit. again only source you cited was that video where they say medicare costs are 28,000. Ya divide that by 10 because its a 10 year plan. So to compare Private: 4,000+, Government: ~2,800
"I pay 0 right now. Why would I want to pay taxes for something I DON'T want?"
Well people that do pay their taxes would effectively be getting some of those back or having them used for general fund because the CBO report itself says it would cost almost 1t but save over 1.2t over 20 years.
"Really is that why MA has the highest cost and wait times in the country? "
I suspect they have high costs because they forgot important cost cutting measures and merely expanded coverage.
He is making a mockery of that woman using her in the way he did. So what would be the difference if health insurance wasn't covered by her job? Then she would still have to pay out of pocket no different than what she does now. So stupid.
Maybe you should try reading the CBO report yourself, it says 1 trillion not 6. Then read on to where it says it actually reduces federal deficits by 81b per decade. That would pay for itself eventually.
It's not like the it would raise your taxes, it actually reduces the amount of tax dollars coming out of your pocket to go toward health care by lowering future spending and offering a cheaper but better policy, with no higher taxes, completely paid for.
So you need to either say emergency care is not a right and sick poor people should be left to die in the streets, or you must admit that it is a right and explain why non-emergency care is different and not a right.
If you think emergency care is a right, then how is non-emergency care different? Preventative care reduces overall costs. If you give people the right only to emergency care and not preventative you are not only increasing the amount needed to be spent for no reason but are also still requiring everyone to pay for that health care through tax dollars. If you think emergency care is not a right, then you are saying we should leave poor people to die on the streets. That is not ok.
It's also funny how you think if something is a service you cannot have a right to it. Well maybe you should read the constitution yourself because it gives people a right to an attorney, a service just the same as health care.
@EJ9832 Please, I am anxiously awaiting your response here. Is that not a constitutional right to a service? If not, how is it any different than a right to health care?
@EJ9832 Right to an attorney is ONLY when the prosecutor is the state. You don't have a "RIGHT" to attorney to sue anyone you want, or defend yourself in civil cases against someone else. Moreover right to legal representation is clearly listed in the Constitution, where is "right" to medical care listed?? Try again.
@tjohn1986 Do you think that emergency medical care for anyone is not a right and is redistribution of wealth? Right to medical care is part of right to life. My point remains that just because something is a service doesn't mean you can't have a right to it.
@EJ9832 You keep asking more and more stupid questions after I answer your older ones. Seems like you have NEVER even been exposed to anything opposite your views. That's what happens when you get your "news" from TYT. Go do some reading.
If health care is a right then why are we not paying for the whole world and not just Americans? Maybe b/c it's not FREE and comes with a COST, and people who bear the cost may not want to pay for it.
@tjohn1986 That is a ridiculous response, come on. That's like saying we shouldn't have police unless we can police the whole world, or we shouldn't give food stamps to americans unless we can give them to everyone. Nobody is saying we should do it for the whole world but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it for our country.
@tjohn1986 What you cannot seem to get through your thick skull is that you are ALREADY paying for it now because people are ignoring problems more and more because of high deductibles or no insurance. Then they go to ER when they are dying and it costs 100 times more because nothing was ever done. Taxpayers are going to pay for that either way, so we might as well have universal coverage and lower costs with preventative care.
@tjohn1986 Then allow me to show you exactly how you are paying for it. Who pays the hospital? The government. Who pays the government? You do! So who is left with the tab for all these free loaders? First the hospital is, then the government, then ultimately taxpayers.
@tjohn1986 Nobody is taking your money to pay for mine or anyone else's healthcare beside your own. You are only asked to pay your share. The bill would actually reduce future healthcare spending therefore basically giving you back money.
@EJ9832 That's fucking retarded. If I am only paying for mine and you're paying for yours, then paying govt bureaucrats is REDUNDANT.
It's cheaper? Go read the CBO report. It's magnitudes more expensive. Or the recent report that it will cost 800k jobs. It's estimated to cost $6 trillion over 10 years. Who told it's cheaper? TYT? If even after the links in the description, you can't see that govt programs are MUCH more expensive, then you're in DENIAL.
@tjohn1986 its paying for insurance. Do you get the idea behind insurance? It's so I don't have to pay 10,000 dollars one day, id rather pay a smaller affordable amount for coverage in case. You are retarded. It's the same whether you pay government or private insurance except the government isn't out to make a profit on your ass and can do it cheaper. If it costs way more for government to do it, why are they afraid it will be able to undercut private companies?
@EJ9832 I pay 0 right now. Why would I want to pay taxes for something I DON'T want?
Really is that why MA has the highest cost and wait times in the country? Is that why Medicare denies more claims than any other private insurer? Is that why private insurance covers lot more people at a fraction of the cost? If simply taking out profit makes a product better, then communism would have worked a long time ago. No son, YOU'RE retarded.
@tjohn1986 That video is a joke. The person who made that video can't even see that those are costs over a ten year period, so divide their number for government coverage by 10 and you will see it is actually much cheaper than private insurance.
And obviously I am not alone in believing that seeing as the United States is the only industrialized country in the world without a universal health insurance system.
People are foregoing preventative care which should be a major overall cost reducer because of high deductibles while profits are at record highs for the insurance companies. Not saying they shouldn't make anything, but come on? Making record profits for 3 straight years while unnecessarily raising deductibles is just morally wrong. Private insurance companies are amoral machines, someone HAS to check them or more people will die while they prosper.
If private insurance is so much more efficient and costs way less, then why are all these people afraid that a public option will kill all the private insurers. If they are spending only 1/4 the money compared to government they should be able to to undercut a government plan and make a huge profit easy.
Be fair in your analysis. If you are going to include fraud money for government, include it for private companies too. Private companies are taking 60b from buyers that they don't need for their profit margin and wasting it just like government.
ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/08/03/gvsd0804.htm
"Health care fraud accounts for as much as 10% of overall health spending and is occurring just as frequently among private insurance plans as public programs, according to a recent report."
@EJ9832 What's the difference between when private insurance is defrauded vs when govt is defrauded?
The difference is when private fucks up THEY pay for it, when govt fucks up WE ALL pay for it.
Maybe you didn't read the link. Private insurance covers 4 times as many as 1/4 the cost. If you're trying to argue govt is more efficient than private sector, then you failed.
@tjohn1986 Where did "they" get the money from? The same people the government got it from. So its the people paying the cost either way whether in taxes or private insurance payments. It is wrong to say we all are not paying for it when the private companies fuck up. We are, if they didn't, they could sell the insurance a lot cheaper. I'm not saying private insurance is more efficient. All I'm saying is in terms of fraud waste they are the same.
And they don't get money from the same people either. Govt gets it's money through force, if you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. ALL pay for a few. There is no force in private. I can CHOOSE to get coverage or which coverage and how much to pay. You pay for yourself. Govt program on the other hand is FORCED wealth re-distribution and to boot, an inefficient one. Try again.
@tjohn1986 Please explain how the study in the article I posted is wrong. You love to just say no don't you.
Ok so the insured people pay for themselves if they choose. The other people just go to hospital for free. Who pays for that? Taxpayers. Seems to me all pay either way.
@EJ9832 And what causes all these uninsured people to get healthcare at everyone's expense? The companies when they refuse people coverage because it would cut into their precious fat profits. They also cause people to be unable to afford insurance in the first place with ridiculous prices.
@EJ9832 Fat profits? Yeah because I am sure you work for free don't you?
And I am sure you'd rather have the govt provide your cell phone, cable, make your cars, clothes, food and everything else. Because USPS is much better than DHS and FedEx.
Go watch /watch?v=LmoS4cZ1p7Y (watch all parts)
and /watch?v=Z6zM1WYhwPw
When you're old enough and start paying taxes, come back and talk to me.
@tjohn1986 You think its ok that they make those profits by denying people coverage which ultimately costs everyone else?
Make all the assumptions you want. I never said I wanted government to do any of that. I see healthcare as a necessity for all that is why I think the government should help provide it. All that other stuff cell phone car clothes is not except food which I think food stamps are great. I have paid taxes for a long time.
@tjohn1986 So then you must think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, are all unconstitutional huh? ha. What about regressive taxes? Are those unconstitutional too since they ultimately redistribute money to the top.
Universal health care is not wealth redistribution. By your definition, a lawsuit would be redistribution of wealth. Nobody is getting wealthy, only healthcare.
"Private insurance covers 4 times as many as 1/4 the cost."
What a joke; the article says no such thing. Show me exactly where it says that and I'll tell you why that is wrong. That is no way that is even close to true. The administrative costs for private companies are many times that for government programs.
Also in response to the second link you posted. There is just as much private insurance fraud so saying that it happens to the government and then blaming the government for it is stupid. That money will be stolen no matter who's hands it was in.
As a percentage of overall americans being poor you are still wrong though. You really think a greater percentage of Americans are poor now than during the great depression?
At least when you are talking about retired seniors. True more people overall are poorer, but why do you think that is? It's not because we don't have a flat tax for sure.
But more of a reason to get rid of sales tax, property, tax, gas tax, excise tax etc etc. But ironically retarded big govt liberals are the reason we have these taxes to begin with. Derp!
Warren Buffet is talking about TAX RATE and Capital Gains tax, not ACTUAL tax dollars paid. He is great philanthropist. How come he give to private charities instead of the govt? Maybe the govt is incompetent in getting the money to it's recipients.
$7 TRILLION dollars later in the war on poverty, there are more poor than ever. #FAIL
I am kinda getting tired of answering your stupid questions. Do you have anything worth answering?
@tjohn1986 Yes Warren Buffet is talking about the rate, not actual tax dollars. What is your point? It is still unfair that rich people pay a lower tax rate.
Actually medicare alone has kept like 40% of our elderly out of poverty. Do you call that a fail? The fail is that poor people pay higher taxes. That is why the middle class is disappearing and becoming poor.
Cenk is for cutting inefficient wasteful spending. There are many areas he has said to cut. So your portraying him as only wanting to raise revenue is a strawman attack.
You are ignorant. The reason is that they are paying record low taxes, not just because they make a lot. Cenk has videos addressing this exact point. He is not attacking anybody. If you believe in equality you should believe in everyone paying a fair share of taxes. That means as a percentage of income. A flat tax favors the rich; this is a fact.
@tjohn1986 So what you don't understand is that we are talking about income tax only here being progressive. Having it be a progressive system is actually working the overall taxes closer to a flat rate. It is vital for equality that there be a progressive income tax system to help counter balance all the other regressive taxes that poor people wind up paying a greater percentage of their income on.
OK dude check this out. You say that this tier of people who get very little from what they put into the tax system use very little of what government gives back because they don't use food stamps and social assistance programs. Are you not aware of the absurdly low tax their businesses pay annually, or how about the special treatment they get from the government and all its levels by the very nature of their affluence? They pay far less by percentage of their ownership than people who are poor.
@tjohn1986 3) Oil is far cheaper than it should be. The reason being that true cost associated with climate change and peak oil is not reflected in the price. That is what I mean by unfair.
Cenk is also insane if he thinks that tax-rates will be raised equally on all businesses; the richest ones will get all the loopholes in these new laws, which will give them an unfair competitive advantage over the others.
That's the problem with liberals, they are simplistic and don't live in the real world.
Just about everything we BUY comes from a corporation that grosses over $2 million, and probably over a billion.
EVERYTHING.
And of course there are DEDUCTIONS and LOOPHOLES in these new taxes, which only the BIGGEST businesses can use because they have the in-house attorneys and accountants, which will drive out smaller businesses-- raising prices even MORE.
@postalmeter Yes, everything came from capitalism. Except space flight, atomic energy, LED screens, the polio vaccine, aerogels, tissue regeneration (that's a new one), lithium batteries, panoramic photography, earthquake-resistant engineering, SONAR, cloning... among many of the discoveries by individuals or in government-run or sponsored projects.
@Magicwillnz Sorry but what a retarded statement. And where did the govt get the money to conduct these researches? So yes it did come from capitalism. You're also ignoring much more money that was wasted on failed or wrong research.
@tjohn1986 Space flight was developed in the USSR. So was the LED, the pressure suit, large-scale nuclear plants, 3d holograms, electric ternery computers... Exactly how far from capitalism do we need to be here?
Any continued insistence that everything came from capitalism is just completely absurd in the face of cold, hard facts. I accept your apology for calling my statement retarded :)
@Magicwillnz Yeah ok. The avg income in Soviet Union was below the poverty line in America. N Korea also has a space program. Not hard to invest in military and space when you're starving your population. Yes history is indeed very clear. From comparing E and W Germany & S and N Korea, to free markets like Hong Kong, Chile & Singapore. Private ownership and profit incentive works, central planning doesn't. You know retardo communism doesn't work when even China turned capitalistic. Try again.
@tjohn1986 I was not the person who set up a giant straw man for myself by saying everything I have is thanks to capitalism. You want me on the side of N Korea? I'm not. But pro-western, pro-capitalist regimes have been just as oppressive. And some socialist countries have been humane and successful. You're right, history IS clear. Except it is on the side of true democracy, not capitalism. For this reason, I'll never settle for the plutocratic totalitarianism libertarians peddle as "freedom".
@Magicwillnz Democracy is a political system not an economic one. You have no clue what you're talking about. And we are not even a democracy, we're a Republic. Yes most if not all things you see around you is either directly created by capitalism or funded by it. Govt research isn't free, it's funded by taxes.
You have NO idea what libertarian individualistic philosophy is. We peddle HUMAN freedom, both social and economic.
@tjohn1986 Did I say America was a democracy? The government has constantly furthered the interests of corporations, intervening in the free election of other nations. It is a very un-representative democracy.
Did I say things are free? Things are not free. The fact is, wealth is not produced on whole by the individual, it is the collective. The collective produces the resources, the goods, the food, the capital, the ideas, and the infrastructure which help people become rich (cont'd)
@tjohn1986 (cont'd) otherwise, our time would be spent on provisioning for ourselves. The agricultural revolution is what first allows us to "afford" a class of thinkers. Everything comes from the *collective*. You can decide not to be a part of it, but you'd mostly be just styling yourself as an individualist rather than actually becoming one. I know this makes your head explode, but the collective isn't necessarily evil, ours respects individual expression, which is good.
@Magicwillnz What's collective? There's no such thing. There's only individuals. Individuals come together for their own mutual interest. That's why they say capitalism is a 100% voluntary system. Collective can only exist if everyone in it benefits. Society by definition is a voluntary association of INDIVIDUALS for common ends. Rights belong to an individual, not a group.
What was the point of that incorrect babble btw? Do u even know what you believe or what idea you want to defend?
@tjohn1986 1) Collective = A COLLECTION of people. Rights are decided by society (the collective) as a whole and then passed onto component INDIVIDUALS. This is why democracy is important.
Capitalism is not a %100 voluntary system, unless you consider starvation and death a choice. Here's some economic theory for you: failures of resource allocation occur even in the absence of government.
@tjohn1986 2) This is because true costs are not taken into account, for example, environmental damage done to communities. This is known as an "externality", that is, the price is not fully reflective of the true cost. Now, this is just one theory, but this concept crops up so much and does enormous amounts of damage. Without an governing force, the market WILL favor products that HURT people. This isn't debatable, this is a fact.
@tjohn1986 3) Because of this, it is impossible to say that capitalism is voluntary, because there will exists a disparity between the price that people pay and the true cost. Look around your house. Can you tell me where it came from? How it was produced? Whether the laborers were fairly paid? How do you know you paid a fair price?
I'm sorry my viewpoint is difficult to understand. It is because it cannot summed up in one sentence under one label. I'll try to make it less complex for you.
1. Rights are granted by the collective?? So what if I chose to leave this collective? All of a sudden I am devoid of rights?? Somalia doesn't have a govt, so we can invade and rape them all since no one granted them rights? What a moronic statement. Rights aren't granted by a foreign body, right to life, right to liberty these are human and universal and we acknowledge them as such (apparently not you).
Rights are inherent and exist independent of a govt.
What's more voluntary? People providing for themselves or you dictating that some provide for others?
2. Did I say I support externalities? It's one of the roles of govt to protect the third party.
LOL it's a FACT? You must have a different definition of "fact". You also must be the very few who buys products that hurt themselves. Trade is a two way street. As much as producers are looking to make money,
consumers are looking to save. No producer who makes products that hurts their consumers will last very long.
3. What's price? What's cost? Do you even understand the concept? What's fair? Who are you to say? Who is in a better position to say what's fair? You (or govt) or the employee and employer? Once again it's a two way street. Opportunity cost (look it up).
No I know exactly what you believe. you're a typical liberal who believes a worker is the only party to be protected.
@tjohn19861) Of course your rights are given by the collective. It's not some foreign body, YOU are part of the collective. If you live alone, you have no rights to speak of, because the concept is defined by your relationship with your society and would be irrelevant. What is a right when there is nobody to respect it?
I think you misunderstand me. I believe in rights, and everyone deserves them, but as a purely social concept, nothing else defines rights except for society.
2) You pretty much admit this, though you probably didn't mean to ("right to life, right to liberty these are human and universal and we acknowledge them as such"). Let me know who you mean by "we" :)
Second, people buy things that hurt themselves all the time. The obvious examples are drugs and compulsive gambling. But that actually wasn't my point. My point was more about hidden costs. For example, that associated with cheap energy from oil.
@tjohn1986 "What's more voluntary? People providing for themselves or you dictating that some provide for others?"
Really? What makes you think you are providing for yourself? Could you farm all the food you need in a day? Could you build yourself a new house? Sew your own clothes? Be your own doctor? There's nothing voluntary about participating in ANY system you are totally reliant upon. I am a capitalist because I am forced to be one to survive, not because I believe in it.
@Magicwillnz Dude are you retarded? I pay for all the things you mentioned with a currency. And how much I pay them and how much they pay me is a simple concept of supply and demand. You can by all means go live on a farm and provide for yourself. Actually the Amish live that way, feel free to join them.
Jesus Christ dude economics 101 <------ try it. I don't have the time to explain to explain basic concepts to you.
And oh on rights, ever heard the term "unalienable rights"?
@tjohn1986 1) *sigh* You're getting confused between ethics and legal rights. My personal beliefs on what is a right are different from what my legal rights actually are, I only get that legal right if I can convince a large number of people that it is a right. Is that not a simple concept? Wouldn't you agree that this is the case?
@tjohn1986 2) I'm not telling you you should become Amish, I'm just letting you know that the price you pay doesn't reflect the true cost, and that someone else will pay that cost, since you seem to care about justice so much. Be that as it may, you haven't really addressed the core thrust of my argument, so I wouldn't be throwing around accusations of me being "retarded".
Stink Booger flunks economics forever; apparently he thinks that businesses just pull that money out of nowhere, rather than just adding it to prices. It's all just "the rich."
He's never heard (or read) of a "dead-weight loss," because he IS dead weight.... like most in the libreral media who believe that money is created by magic, along with the things it buys.
Well they're partly right: just like Aesop said "a fool and his money are soon parted," it can DISAPPEAR like magic!
America spends more per person than any other country and does not have the best healthcare. You can listen to the hype if you want but healthcare in Canada is great. For every one person you find dissing it you can find 100 that have a favorable opinion.
@MrShnigglepuff Do you know what causality is? Capitalism is what produced the wealth in Canada to enable social health care, not the other way around.
I am not against capitalism in the least. In America the tax system is made so the richest people in the country pay the least in taxes due to loopholes. They should not pay a higher % than the rest but should pay the same %. Companies posting billion dollar profits getting millions in subsidies. You have companies making donations to politicians that have a direct influence on decisions that affect said company. This is how capitalism is now and paeople say it is legit?
I don't TRUST this IDIOT. . Trust is earned. He is Untrustworthy. I agree with tjohn1982. Do your own research, before you support any Politician, Lawyer, preacher, News media commentator, Investment advisor, (bernie Maddoff), commercials.. ect. The tax code is 7000 pages Long.! It doesn't NEED to be complicated. Simplify It or eliminate it. Want to fix Social security? Simplify it!. Remember the " KISS principle"? Keep It Simple Stupid !.
I don't agree that government should have no say in regulating private industry. Since a private company only cares about profits it means they are willing to cut on safety or just plain screw people. I know government hasn't always done a good job at being a regulator but it's better than none at all. I know when I worked for company X, they implicitly told us to squeeze the customers. I was able to rationalize it by saying fuck them they aren't paying my bills, but i look back and do feel bad
@ubermisogynist I completely disagree. I come from one of the then poorest regions in the world.
Also I didn't say no regulation, but minimal, necessary regulation. You also fail to point out that the customer always had the choice of whether to continue to buy from company X or not. Govt. doesn't have the right to take that away, do they?
News Commentators can be annoying, I used to not watch them and then I started and I had cutdown on it because it's annoying to hear someone give their spin on something but as an audience you can't interact back with them. I know that laissez faire capitalism will cause a greater disparity between the rich and the poor and laissez faire capitalism is inherently not equal, pretty much if your born in the wrong town,color or dont have the right genes your destiny pretty much locked.
Cenk: "the most reasonable bill in the history of man kind", "it doesn't even get up to 50%". He wasn't just telling me about a proposed bill. He was passionately trying to sell it, persuade, convince his audience. When you only give one side of an issue in an attempt to persuade people to accept your opinion on it, that's propaganda.
@owheydusoapsk OK, fine, but that means what? That TYT is opinionated. Didn't you already know that going in? I'm sure if one searches around, they can find a "news source" that approximates their own political point of view.
I like TYT and Cenk. It's an especially good foil against the right-wing wing-nuts and human debris like Beck and Rush. But I'm not a sycophant to left wing talking heads. I agree most the time but sometimes they are too left for me.
How the hell can you compare Rush Limbaugh, who makes up crap out of his peanut sized brain, to a left leaning show you that presents facts you don't agree with
dmcarefuldriver 1 week ago
@dmcarefuldriver They are all cointelpro created by the globalists for the agenda to pit us against each other. Unger is definetely a shill has been from the beginning. Don't listen to any of them.
dmmct99 1 week ago
No lets tax the people that don't have money, lets tax the poor so they can't even affored food. The main tax that should be being up their is large Corporations pay 30% but with loop wholes in fact most only pay up to 10 percent! Also as for the Rich they also do the same things corporations do and that's to get around it via loop wholes bullshit. You know the people building and that makes this country is US people with low income jobs under 60k and we get taxed to hell! Tax alcohol & the fed!
TheHampdenRaven 1 month ago
Woo i filled the screen with snow!
TheJam1192 2 months ago
Wow! I had fun reading through the comments lol. That guy single handedly, handed dozens of liberals their asses LOL.
PhilosopherGod 3 months ago 2
@PhilosopherGod LOL, he's pretty awesome. Don't understand the hate though.
HefferHefferHeffer 3 months ago
...This means capitalist societies are not really free. It's not only the government that exerts power and diminishes freedom. The government can however restrain the power of business over workers and consumers, which is the trade-off social-democrats are in favor of, because government leaders are at least elected, business leaders are not.
Ollie9402 3 months ago
On redistribution I would like to point out that every business does it. You put in your effort as a worker, the person who owns the business owns your produce and gives you back in wages only part of the value you added, keeping the rest for his own profit...
Ollie9402 3 months ago
About government catering to special interests: This can probably not be prevented, but one big problem with that is that in the US, only corporate lobbies seem very powerful, whereas in the Netherlands for example, strong unions, lobbies for legalised prostitution (= defending sex workers), subsidised environmental groups and anti-business political parties in can all compete for influence with corporate lobbies.
Ollie9402 3 months ago
The way Americans complain about government-run services is somewhat irrational. Europeans complain the same way about everything that was privatised. In Australia, privatization has often worked, in much of Europe, public services are good. You really have to judge this case by case basis. And besides, how can you expect the government to be run well if you choose leaders who don't want it too?
Ollie9402 3 months ago
Why do you think income inequality is supposed to be good? The function of the price mechanism is to balance supply and demand. If prices of productive factors (meaning income) are very high or low, that means resources are being misallocated. So income disparities reveal disfunction and inefficiency in a market, whereas prices/incomes approaching levels of equality would indicate that much less reallocation is needed. Free market believers should want equality, as Adam Smith did.
Ollie9402 3 months ago
Comment removed
Ollie9402 3 months ago
your argument makes no sense retard..
bkim9289 4 months ago
@bkim9289 Thanks for stopping by cocksucker.
tjohn1986 4 months ago
@tjohn
Tyt never claimed to be anything other than what U see on the show; so-called progressive liberals. At the same time they slam Obama on a regular basis. Other news shows claim to be balanced yet they always stand by their elected guys.
A rational person would have to consider the small # of views you've gotten on this vid after months of posting;also taking into account your 'like/dislike' ratio; then compare it to the success of TYT; leaving U looking & sounding pretty stupid
farronx 4 weeks ago
Oh wait he is. What an idiot. So the video goes from, Oh look at these poor uninsured people who lost their job, to, Lets get rid of all insurance. You don't go to the hospital and pick out expensive treatements. But he is saying that's the way health insurance works. No it's not, they give you the medicine you need, not an expensive wine or treat.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 While not the brightest on other matters this fellow has an excellent grasp of economics, or as you only seem to have a grasp on a bong, whiskey bottle and your landlords cock to pump him so you don't get thrown out of your government housing. So stop spamming and go somewhere else, after all, you've been mercilessly destroyed in the comments. I would think you'd want to stop punishing yourself by looking like such a fool so consistently
bigboss686 5 months ago 2
@bigboss686 Maybe one day you will learn to use arguments instead of personal attacks.
EJ9832 4 months ago
@EJ9832 I do quite frequently, but not with low brow human garbage such as yourself.
After all, your plethora of nonsensical comments has made it quite clear that polite debate is wasted on you.
Now get back to your cock sucking, no doubt the rent is due before you know it
bigboss686 4 months ago 2
@bigboss686 ok dude, you're the one over here sucking john's cock with nothing original to say.
EJ9832 4 months ago
@EJ9832 Stop spamming. Are you retarded or something?
Misanthr0picNihilist 4 months ago 2
It's almost as if he is arguing against any type of insurance whatsoever with his ridiculous comparisons to food and gas. Those are predictable relatively cheaper.
EJ9832 5 months ago
He basically defeats his own argument because universal healthcare would cover those people where as leaving it in the hands of companies they will continue to do this to people.
EJ9832 5 months ago
God John Stossel is such an idiot. "Why not just get steak instead of burgers, the insurance company is paying."
Except who pays they insurance company? You are the one ultimately paying the high price in premiums and deductibles.
If he had a real argument he would offer an alternative. Instead all he does in the video is whine that "you are tied to your job." Ya of course your finances are tied to your job. All the more reason we should have an affordable public option for these people!
EJ9832 5 months ago
The answer to your question of why everyone should pay to cover the sick. Everyone will get sick at some time. So it is only a matter of time before the healthy switch places with the sick, what then you would want when you become sick and can't afford skyrocketing premiums?
EJ9832 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" Is that why Medicare denies more claims than any other private insurer?"
Bullshit. dailykos.com/story/2009/10/06/790105/-Debunked!-Medicare-denies-more-than-PrivInsurance!-(Update2)
" Is that why private insurance covers lot more people at a fraction of the cost?"
Bullshit. again only source you cited was that video where they say medicare costs are 28,000. Ya divide that by 10 because its a 10 year plan. So to compare Private: 4,000+, Government: ~2,800
EJ9832 5 months ago
"I pay 0 right now. Why would I want to pay taxes for something I DON'T want?"
Well people that do pay their taxes would effectively be getting some of those back or having them used for general fund because the CBO report itself says it would cost almost 1t but save over 1.2t over 20 years.
"Really is that why MA has the highest cost and wait times in the country? "
I suspect they have high costs because they forgot important cost cutting measures and merely expanded coverage.
EJ9832 5 months ago
factcheck . org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/
EJ9832 5 months ago
rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/18/ap-assails-gop-claim-health-law-cost-jobs/
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 Numbnuts your links are broken. PM them. I am tired of you leaving a thousand comments anyway.
tjohn1986 5 months ago 2
He is making a mockery of that woman using her in the way he did. So what would be the difference if health insurance wasn't covered by her job? Then she would still have to pay out of pocket no different than what she does now. So stupid.
EJ9832 5 months ago
John Stossel is a clown. "What if we had grocery insurance?" Really? comparing the two if you can't see the difference you can't see anything.
EJ9832 5 months ago
Maybe you should try reading the CBO report yourself, it says 1 trillion not 6. Then read on to where it says it actually reduces federal deficits by 81b per decade. That would pay for itself eventually.
EJ9832 5 months ago
It's not like the it would raise your taxes, it actually reduces the amount of tax dollars coming out of your pocket to go toward health care by lowering future spending and offering a cheaper but better policy, with no higher taxes, completely paid for.
EJ9832 5 months ago
So you need to either say emergency care is not a right and sick poor people should be left to die in the streets, or you must admit that it is a right and explain why non-emergency care is different and not a right.
EJ9832 5 months ago
If you think emergency care is a right, then how is non-emergency care different? Preventative care reduces overall costs. If you give people the right only to emergency care and not preventative you are not only increasing the amount needed to be spent for no reason but are also still requiring everyone to pay for that health care through tax dollars. If you think emergency care is not a right, then you are saying we should leave poor people to die on the streets. That is not ok.
EJ9832 5 months ago
It's also funny how you think if something is a service you cannot have a right to it. Well maybe you should read the constitution yourself because it gives people a right to an attorney, a service just the same as health care.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 Please, I am anxiously awaiting your response here. Is that not a constitutional right to a service? If not, how is it any different than a right to health care?
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 Right to an attorney is ONLY when the prosecutor is the state. You don't have a "RIGHT" to attorney to sue anyone you want, or defend yourself in civil cases against someone else. Moreover right to legal representation is clearly listed in the Constitution, where is "right" to medical care listed?? Try again.
/watch?v=HaUUDtYNT_M
tjohn1986 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 Do you think that emergency medical care for anyone is not a right and is redistribution of wealth? Right to medical care is part of right to life. My point remains that just because something is a service doesn't mean you can't have a right to it.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 You keep asking more and more stupid questions after I answer your older ones. Seems like you have NEVER even been exposed to anything opposite your views. That's what happens when you get your "news" from TYT. Go do some reading.
If health care is a right then why are we not paying for the whole world and not just Americans? Maybe b/c it's not FREE and comes with a COST, and people who bear the cost may not want to pay for it.
Why should I pay for YOUR healthcare??
tjohn1986 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 That is a ridiculous response, come on. That's like saying we shouldn't have police unless we can police the whole world, or we shouldn't give food stamps to americans unless we can give them to everyone. Nobody is saying we should do it for the whole world but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it for our country.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 What you cannot seem to get through your thick skull is that you are ALREADY paying for it now because people are ignoring problems more and more because of high deductibles or no insurance. Then they go to ER when they are dying and it costs 100 times more because nothing was ever done. Taxpayers are going to pay for that either way, so we might as well have universal coverage and lower costs with preventative care.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 Nope. I am NOT paying for it. I don't know where you got the stupid idea that I am paying for it.
Emergency medical care should be left to the hospitals, and they usually do take care of them due to Hippocratic oath.
Answer the question - Why should I pay for YOUR healthcare? Give a single reason. Who the fuck are you to take MY money?
tjohn1986 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 Then allow me to show you exactly how you are paying for it. Who pays the hospital? The government. Who pays the government? You do! So who is left with the tab for all these free loaders? First the hospital is, then the government, then ultimately taxpayers.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 NOPE. That's NOT how it works.
But where is the answer to my question??
tjohn1986 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 Nobody is taking your money to pay for mine or anyone else's healthcare beside your own. You are only asked to pay your share. The bill would actually reduce future healthcare spending therefore basically giving you back money.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 That's fucking retarded. If I am only paying for mine and you're paying for yours, then paying govt bureaucrats is REDUNDANT.
It's cheaper? Go read the CBO report. It's magnitudes more expensive. Or the recent report that it will cost 800k jobs. It's estimated to cost $6 trillion over 10 years. Who told it's cheaper? TYT? If even after the links in the description, you can't see that govt programs are MUCH more expensive, then you're in DENIAL.
/watch?v=kf3MtjMBWx4
tjohn1986 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 its paying for insurance. Do you get the idea behind insurance? It's so I don't have to pay 10,000 dollars one day, id rather pay a smaller affordable amount for coverage in case. You are retarded. It's the same whether you pay government or private insurance except the government isn't out to make a profit on your ass and can do it cheaper. If it costs way more for government to do it, why are they afraid it will be able to undercut private companies?
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 I pay 0 right now. Why would I want to pay taxes for something I DON'T want?
Really is that why MA has the highest cost and wait times in the country? Is that why Medicare denies more claims than any other private insurer? Is that why private insurance covers lot more people at a fraction of the cost? If simply taking out profit makes a product better, then communism would have worked a long time ago. No son, YOU'RE retarded.
/watch?v=CWIW3ueUjSo
/watch?v=3E29LD98ruo
/watch?v=ToPvJ9kXY7c
tjohn1986 5 months ago 2
@tjohn1986 The CBO report also says that with the future cost controls health care would more than pay for itself.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 That video is a joke. The person who made that video can't even see that those are costs over a ten year period, so divide their number for government coverage by 10 and you will see it is actually much cheaper than private insurance.
EJ9832 5 months ago
And obviously I am not alone in believing that seeing as the United States is the only industrialized country in the world without a universal health insurance system.
EJ9832 5 months ago
I think proper healthcare is part of everyone's inalienable right to life.
EJ9832 5 months ago
People are foregoing preventative care which should be a major overall cost reducer because of high deductibles while profits are at record highs for the insurance companies. Not saying they shouldn't make anything, but come on? Making record profits for 3 straight years while unnecessarily raising deductibles is just morally wrong. Private insurance companies are amoral machines, someone HAS to check them or more people will die while they prosper.
EJ9832 5 months ago
If private insurance is so much more efficient and costs way less, then why are all these people afraid that a public option will kill all the private insurers. If they are spending only 1/4 the money compared to government they should be able to to undercut a government plan and make a huge profit easy.
EJ9832 5 months ago
Be fair in your analysis. If you are going to include fraud money for government, include it for private companies too. Private companies are taking 60b from buyers that they don't need for their profit margin and wasting it just like government.
ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/08/03/gvsd0804.htm
"Health care fraud accounts for as much as 10% of overall health spending and is occurring just as frequently among private insurance plans as public programs, according to a recent report."
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 What's the difference between when private insurance is defrauded vs when govt is defrauded?
The difference is when private fucks up THEY pay for it, when govt fucks up WE ALL pay for it.
Maybe you didn't read the link. Private insurance covers 4 times as many as 1/4 the cost. If you're trying to argue govt is more efficient than private sector, then you failed.
tjohn1986 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 Where did "they" get the money from? The same people the government got it from. So its the people paying the cost either way whether in taxes or private insurance payments. It is wrong to say we all are not paying for it when the private companies fuck up. We are, if they didn't, they could sell the insurance a lot cheaper. I'm not saying private insurance is more efficient. All I'm saying is in terms of fraud waste they are the same.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 *not saying government is more efficient.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 NO they are NOT. Not even close!
And they don't get money from the same people either. Govt gets it's money through force, if you don't pay taxes, you go to jail. ALL pay for a few. There is no force in private. I can CHOOSE to get coverage or which coverage and how much to pay. You pay for yourself. Govt program on the other hand is FORCED wealth re-distribution and to boot, an inefficient one. Try again.
tjohn1986 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 Please explain how the study in the article I posted is wrong. You love to just say no don't you.
Ok so the insured people pay for themselves if they choose. The other people just go to hospital for free. Who pays for that? Taxpayers. Seems to me all pay either way.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 And what causes all these uninsured people to get healthcare at everyone's expense? The companies when they refuse people coverage because it would cut into their precious fat profits. They also cause people to be unable to afford insurance in the first place with ridiculous prices.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 Fat profits? Yeah because I am sure you work for free don't you?
And I am sure you'd rather have the govt provide your cell phone, cable, make your cars, clothes, food and everything else. Because USPS is much better than DHS and FedEx.
Go watch /watch?v=LmoS4cZ1p7Y (watch all parts)
and /watch?v=Z6zM1WYhwPw
When you're old enough and start paying taxes, come back and talk to me.
tjohn1986 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 You think its ok that they make those profits by denying people coverage which ultimately costs everyone else?
Make all the assumptions you want. I never said I wanted government to do any of that. I see healthcare as a necessity for all that is why I think the government should help provide it. All that other stuff cell phone car clothes is not except food which I think food stamps are great. I have paid taxes for a long time.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 Healthcare isn't a RIGHT, it's a SERVICE. Learn the difference. And you're NOT ENTITLED to someone else's products.
tjohn1986 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 That's like, your opinion, man.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 NOPE. Read the Constitution, the Federalist papers, John Locke etc.
It's YOUR opinion. Govt has NO RIGHT re-distributing wealth.
tjohn1986 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 So then you must think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, are all unconstitutional huh? ha. What about regressive taxes? Are those unconstitutional too since they ultimately redistribute money to the top.
Universal health care is not wealth redistribution. By your definition, a lawsuit would be redistribution of wealth. Nobody is getting wealthy, only healthcare.
EJ9832 5 months ago
"Private insurance covers 4 times as many as 1/4 the cost."
What a joke; the article says no such thing. Show me exactly where it says that and I'll tell you why that is wrong. That is no way that is even close to true. The administrative costs for private companies are many times that for government programs.
EJ9832 5 months ago
Also in response to the second link you posted. There is just as much private insurance fraud so saying that it happens to the government and then blaming the government for it is stupid. That money will be stolen no matter who's hands it was in.
EJ9832 5 months ago
So you saying that there are more poor than ever is meaningless.
EJ9832 5 months ago
Of course the physical amount of poor people is going to go up with a growth in population.
EJ9832 5 months ago
As a percentage of overall americans being poor you are still wrong though. You really think a greater percentage of Americans are poor now than during the great depression?
EJ9832 5 months ago
At least when you are talking about retired seniors. True more people overall are poorer, but why do you think that is? It's not because we don't have a flat tax for sure.
EJ9832 5 months ago
But including social security that jumps past 40%. Actually there are less poor than ever as a percentage, learn the facts.
EJ9832 5 months ago
Sorry that was off the top of the head. It only kept at least over 20% of seniors out of poverty . Still very significant.
EJ9832 5 months ago
If the wealthy are paying higher taxes, why hasn't anyone taken up warren buffet on his million dollar offer?
EJ9832 5 months ago
Think about this. It is a fact that the less you make in the us the greater percentage of your income you pay in taxes. Now how is that equal?
It is not. This is because sales tax, property tax, etc. are all regressive systems outweighing the one progressive tax.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 Lol no they don't.
But more of a reason to get rid of sales tax, property, tax, gas tax, excise tax etc etc. But ironically retarded big govt liberals are the reason we have these taxes to begin with. Derp!
tjohn1986 5 months ago 4
@tjohn1986 Care to explain more than just saying no? How would you pay for roads?
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 No.
Toll tax.
tjohn1986 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 Great, another regressive tax. What about paying for public education and everything else those taxes go toward?
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 Umm income tax.
Warren Buffet is talking about TAX RATE and Capital Gains tax, not ACTUAL tax dollars paid. He is great philanthropist. How come he give to private charities instead of the govt? Maybe the govt is incompetent in getting the money to it's recipients.
$7 TRILLION dollars later in the war on poverty, there are more poor than ever. #FAIL
I am kinda getting tired of answering your stupid questions. Do you have anything worth answering?
tjohn1986 5 months ago
@tjohn1986 Yes Warren Buffet is talking about the rate, not actual tax dollars. What is your point? It is still unfair that rich people pay a lower tax rate.
EJ9832 5 months ago
Actually medicare alone has kept like 40% of our elderly out of poverty. Do you call that a fail? The fail is that poor people pay higher taxes. That is why the middle class is disappearing and becoming poor.
EJ9832 5 months ago
Cenk is for cutting inefficient wasteful spending. There are many areas he has said to cut. So your portraying him as only wanting to raise revenue is a strawman attack.
EJ9832 5 months ago
You are ignorant. The reason is that they are paying record low taxes, not just because they make a lot. Cenk has videos addressing this exact point. He is not attacking anybody. If you believe in equality you should believe in everyone paying a fair share of taxes. That means as a percentage of income. A flat tax favors the rich; this is a fact.
EJ9832 5 months ago
@EJ9832 So equality is me asking the richest guy at the table to foot the bill? You have a twisted definition of "equality".
tjohn1986 5 months ago 4
@tjohn1986 So what you don't understand is that we are talking about income tax only here being progressive. Having it be a progressive system is actually working the overall taxes closer to a flat rate. It is vital for equality that there be a progressive income tax system to help counter balance all the other regressive taxes that poor people wind up paying a greater percentage of their income on.
EJ9832 5 months ago
OK dude check this out. You say that this tier of people who get very little from what they put into the tax system use very little of what government gives back because they don't use food stamps and social assistance programs. Are you not aware of the absurdly low tax their businesses pay annually, or how about the special treatment they get from the government and all its levels by the very nature of their affluence? They pay far less by percentage of their ownership than people who are poor.
nekopheliac 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 3) Oil is far cheaper than it should be. The reason being that true cost associated with climate change and peak oil is not reflected in the price. That is what I mean by unfair.
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
Cenk is also insane if he thinks that tax-rates will be raised equally on all businesses; the richest ones will get all the loopholes in these new laws, which will give them an unfair competitive advantage over the others.
That's the problem with liberals, they are simplistic and don't live in the real world.
postalmeter 7 months ago
So Stink Booger doesn't think it will affect him?
Just about everything we BUY comes from a corporation that grosses over $2 million, and probably over a billion.
EVERYTHING.
And of course there are DEDUCTIONS and LOOPHOLES in these new taxes, which only the BIGGEST businesses can use because they have the in-house attorneys and accountants, which will drive out smaller businesses-- raising prices even MORE.
NICE GOING, STINK!
Fucking single brain-cell moron
postalmeter 7 months ago
@postalmeter Yes, everything came from capitalism. Except space flight, atomic energy, LED screens, the polio vaccine, aerogels, tissue regeneration (that's a new one), lithium batteries, panoramic photography, earthquake-resistant engineering, SONAR, cloning... among many of the discoveries by individuals or in government-run or sponsored projects.
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
@Magicwillnz Sorry but what a retarded statement. And where did the govt get the money to conduct these researches? So yes it did come from capitalism. You're also ignoring much more money that was wasted on failed or wrong research.
tjohn1986 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 Space flight was developed in the USSR. So was the LED, the pressure suit, large-scale nuclear plants, 3d holograms, electric ternery computers... Exactly how far from capitalism do we need to be here?
Any continued insistence that everything came from capitalism is just completely absurd in the face of cold, hard facts. I accept your apology for calling my statement retarded :)
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
@Magicwillnz Yeah ok. The avg income in Soviet Union was below the poverty line in America. N Korea also has a space program. Not hard to invest in military and space when you're starving your population. Yes history is indeed very clear. From comparing E and W Germany & S and N Korea, to free markets like Hong Kong, Chile & Singapore. Private ownership and profit incentive works, central planning doesn't. You know retardo communism doesn't work when even China turned capitalistic. Try again.
tjohn1986 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 I was not the person who set up a giant straw man for myself by saying everything I have is thanks to capitalism. You want me on the side of N Korea? I'm not. But pro-western, pro-capitalist regimes have been just as oppressive. And some socialist countries have been humane and successful. You're right, history IS clear. Except it is on the side of true democracy, not capitalism. For this reason, I'll never settle for the plutocratic totalitarianism libertarians peddle as "freedom".
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
@Magicwillnz Democracy is a political system not an economic one. You have no clue what you're talking about. And we are not even a democracy, we're a Republic. Yes most if not all things you see around you is either directly created by capitalism or funded by it. Govt research isn't free, it's funded by taxes.
You have NO idea what libertarian individualistic philosophy is. We peddle HUMAN freedom, both social and economic.
Try again.
tjohn1986 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 Did I say America was a democracy? The government has constantly furthered the interests of corporations, intervening in the free election of other nations. It is a very un-representative democracy.
Did I say things are free? Things are not free. The fact is, wealth is not produced on whole by the individual, it is the collective. The collective produces the resources, the goods, the food, the capital, the ideas, and the infrastructure which help people become rich (cont'd)
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 (cont'd) otherwise, our time would be spent on provisioning for ourselves. The agricultural revolution is what first allows us to "afford" a class of thinkers. Everything comes from the *collective*. You can decide not to be a part of it, but you'd mostly be just styling yourself as an individualist rather than actually becoming one. I know this makes your head explode, but the collective isn't necessarily evil, ours respects individual expression, which is good.
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
@Magicwillnz What's collective? There's no such thing. There's only individuals. Individuals come together for their own mutual interest. That's why they say capitalism is a 100% voluntary system. Collective can only exist if everyone in it benefits. Society by definition is a voluntary association of INDIVIDUALS for common ends. Rights belong to an individual, not a group.
What was the point of that incorrect babble btw? Do u even know what you believe or what idea you want to defend?
Try again
tjohn1986 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 1) Collective = A COLLECTION of people. Rights are decided by society (the collective) as a whole and then passed onto component INDIVIDUALS. This is why democracy is important.
Capitalism is not a %100 voluntary system, unless you consider starvation and death a choice. Here's some economic theory for you: failures of resource allocation occur even in the absence of government.
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 2) This is because true costs are not taken into account, for example, environmental damage done to communities. This is known as an "externality", that is, the price is not fully reflective of the true cost. Now, this is just one theory, but this concept crops up so much and does enormous amounts of damage. Without an governing force, the market WILL favor products that HURT people. This isn't debatable, this is a fact.
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 3) Because of this, it is impossible to say that capitalism is voluntary, because there will exists a disparity between the price that people pay and the true cost. Look around your house. Can you tell me where it came from? How it was produced? Whether the laborers were fairly paid? How do you know you paid a fair price?
I'm sorry my viewpoint is difficult to understand. It is because it cannot summed up in one sentence under one label. I'll try to make it less complex for you.
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
@Magicwillnz 1/3
Wow this ignorance is appaling
1. Rights are granted by the collective?? So what if I chose to leave this collective? All of a sudden I am devoid of rights?? Somalia doesn't have a govt, so we can invade and rape them all since no one granted them rights? What a moronic statement. Rights aren't granted by a foreign body, right to life, right to liberty these are human and universal and we acknowledge them as such (apparently not you).
tjohn1986 6 months ago
@Magicwillnz 2/3
Rights are inherent and exist independent of a govt.
What's more voluntary? People providing for themselves or you dictating that some provide for others?
2. Did I say I support externalities? It's one of the roles of govt to protect the third party.
LOL it's a FACT? You must have a different definition of "fact". You also must be the very few who buys products that hurt themselves. Trade is a two way street. As much as producers are looking to make money,
tjohn1986 6 months ago
@Magicwillnz 3/3
consumers are looking to save. No producer who makes products that hurts their consumers will last very long.
3. What's price? What's cost? Do you even understand the concept? What's fair? Who are you to say? Who is in a better position to say what's fair? You (or govt) or the employee and employer? Once again it's a two way street. Opportunity cost (look it up).
No I know exactly what you believe. you're a typical liberal who believes a worker is the only party to be protected.
tjohn1986 6 months ago
@tjohn19861) Of course your rights are given by the collective. It's not some foreign body, YOU are part of the collective. If you live alone, you have no rights to speak of, because the concept is defined by your relationship with your society and would be irrelevant. What is a right when there is nobody to respect it?
I think you misunderstand me. I believe in rights, and everyone deserves them, but as a purely social concept, nothing else defines rights except for society.
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
@tjohn1986
2) You pretty much admit this, though you probably didn't mean to ("right to life, right to liberty these are human and universal and we acknowledge them as such"). Let me know who you mean by "we" :)
Second, people buy things that hurt themselves all the time. The obvious examples are drugs and compulsive gambling. But that actually wasn't my point. My point was more about hidden costs. For example, that associated with cheap energy from oil.
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 "What's more voluntary? People providing for themselves or you dictating that some provide for others?"
Really? What makes you think you are providing for yourself? Could you farm all the food you need in a day? Could you build yourself a new house? Sew your own clothes? Be your own doctor? There's nothing voluntary about participating in ANY system you are totally reliant upon. I am a capitalist because I am forced to be one to survive, not because I believe in it.
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
@Magicwillnz Dude are you retarded? I pay for all the things you mentioned with a currency. And how much I pay them and how much they pay me is a simple concept of supply and demand. You can by all means go live on a farm and provide for yourself. Actually the Amish live that way, feel free to join them.
Jesus Christ dude economics 101 <------ try it. I don't have the time to explain to explain basic concepts to you.
And oh on rights, ever heard the term "unalienable rights"?
tjohn1986 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 1) *sigh* You're getting confused between ethics and legal rights. My personal beliefs on what is a right are different from what my legal rights actually are, I only get that legal right if I can convince a large number of people that it is a right. Is that not a simple concept? Wouldn't you agree that this is the case?
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
@tjohn1986 2) I'm not telling you you should become Amish, I'm just letting you know that the price you pay doesn't reflect the true cost, and that someone else will pay that cost, since you seem to care about justice so much. Be that as it may, you haven't really addressed the core thrust of my argument, so I wouldn't be throwing around accusations of me being "retarded".
Magicwillnz 6 months ago
Stink Booger flunks economics forever; apparently he thinks that businesses just pull that money out of nowhere, rather than just adding it to prices. It's all just "the rich."
He's never heard (or read) of a "dead-weight loss," because he IS dead weight.... like most in the libreral media who believe that money is created by magic, along with the things it buys.
Well they're partly right: just like Aesop said "a fool and his money are soon parted," it can DISAPPEAR like magic!
postalmeter 7 months ago
@postalmeter Lol they think healthcare can really be "free" lol
tjohn1986 7 months ago
@tjohn1986
That's easy, just don't ever go to a doctor or hospital, or buy medicine;; and it won't cost a CENT!
Because that's what we'll get with O-commie care.
postalmeter 7 months ago
@tjohn1986
America spends more per person than any other country and does not have the best healthcare. You can listen to the hype if you want but healthcare in Canada is great. For every one person you find dissing it you can find 100 that have a favorable opinion.
MrShnigglepuff 6 months ago
@MrShnigglepuff Do you know what causality is? Capitalism is what produced the wealth in Canada to enable social health care, not the other way around.
tjohn1986 6 months ago
@tjohn1986
I am not against capitalism in the least. In America the tax system is made so the richest people in the country pay the least in taxes due to loopholes. They should not pay a higher % than the rest but should pay the same %. Companies posting billion dollar profits getting millions in subsidies. You have companies making donations to politicians that have a direct influence on decisions that affect said company. This is how capitalism is now and paeople say it is legit?
MrShnigglepuff 6 months ago
@MrShnigglepuff The link is in the description on who pays how much taxes.
But what you're talking about is crony capitalism, and I don't support that. No subsidies. No corporate welfare and no social welfare.
tjohn1986 6 months ago
I don't TRUST this IDIOT. . Trust is earned. He is Untrustworthy. I agree with tjohn1982. Do your own research, before you support any Politician, Lawyer, preacher, News media commentator, Investment advisor, (bernie Maddoff), commercials.. ect. The tax code is 7000 pages Long.! It doesn't NEED to be complicated. Simplify It or eliminate it. Want to fix Social security? Simplify it!. Remember the " KISS principle"? Keep It Simple Stupid !.
merlinspower 10 months ago 3
Glenn Beck has just become a full time prophet for the mormon church, and no longer has time for fox news.
solomanspaming 10 months ago
I don't agree that government should have no say in regulating private industry. Since a private company only cares about profits it means they are willing to cut on safety or just plain screw people. I know government hasn't always done a good job at being a regulator but it's better than none at all. I know when I worked for company X, they implicitly told us to squeeze the customers. I was able to rationalize it by saying fuck them they aren't paying my bills, but i look back and do feel bad
ubermisogynist 11 months ago
@ubermisogynist I completely disagree. I come from one of the then poorest regions in the world.
Also I didn't say no regulation, but minimal, necessary regulation. You also fail to point out that the customer always had the choice of whether to continue to buy from company X or not. Govt. doesn't have the right to take that away, do they?
tjohn1986 11 months ago
@ubermisogynist
If they care about profits then obviously they're going want to avoid lawsuits and spiked insurance-costs.
Company X obviously won't be in business long.
postalmeter 7 months ago
News Commentators can be annoying, I used to not watch them and then I started and I had cutdown on it because it's annoying to hear someone give their spin on something but as an audience you can't interact back with them. I know that laissez faire capitalism will cause a greater disparity between the rich and the poor and laissez faire capitalism is inherently not equal, pretty much if your born in the wrong town,color or dont have the right genes your destiny pretty much locked.
ubermisogynist 11 months ago
@ubermisogynist
You're confusing lassez-fair capitalism with CRONY capitalism-- just like Karl Marx did.
postalmeter 7 months ago
I have to agree. I like a lot of what's on TYT but at times their propaganda is as bad as the talking heads on the right.
owheydusoapsk 11 months ago
@owheydusoapsk How is telling you about a proposed bill from a sitting US congress member propaganda?
alaskafido 11 months ago
@alaskafido
Cenk: "the most reasonable bill in the history of man kind", "it doesn't even get up to 50%". He wasn't just telling me about a proposed bill. He was passionately trying to sell it, persuade, convince his audience. When you only give one side of an issue in an attempt to persuade people to accept your opinion on it, that's propaganda.
owheydusoapsk 11 months ago
@owheydusoapsk OK, fine, but that means what? That TYT is opinionated. Didn't you already know that going in? I'm sure if one searches around, they can find a "news source" that approximates their own political point of view.
alaskafido 11 months ago
@alaskafido
I like TYT and Cenk. It's an especially good foil against the right-wing wing-nuts and human debris like Beck and Rush. But I'm not a sycophant to left wing talking heads. I agree most the time but sometimes they are too left for me.
owheydusoapsk 11 months ago