Michael Medved Gets Schooled on Bush Tax Cuts: The ED Show

[operationNOBO]

Michael Medved doesn't get schooled.

[michaelsterling37]

Democrats and Republicans are both corrupt, and Michael is a complete moron.

[coldelio]

how exactly did he get schooled? just a typical democratic debate with all the same points that arent correct. Just because ed talks louder doesn't mean he makes a better point. it just means he's louder, not right. Medved- 1 Schultz- 0

[petekrusetunes]

Medved didn't get schooled

[basebal3player]

when was he schooled? and tricke down never fails, government never lets it thrive

[Whiteberry77]

I agree with Michael Medved 100%. These two liberals are terribly confused and they twist the truth in order to manipulate ignorant citizens into believing something that's simply not true. They want you to believe that by not extending the tax cuts, that's not a tax increase. Whether the tax cuts were scheduled to expire or not is irrelevant. Bottom line is this, WHEN TAXES GO UP IT'S A TAX INCREASE.

[quesadillacream]

Medved gets schooled??!? Nah, just the typical Ed Schultz talking louder than the opposition. Louder and wrong.

[quesadillacream]

Fairtax.org

[mattcrow6]

AYN RAAAAAAAAAAAnd

[missles518]

So Rich people get rich. GREAT! Then they buy more expensive Cable, Electricity, Homes, Furniture, ETC. More money means being able to buy more expensive things. And the more expensive things a Wealthy man buys, the more money goes into the ECONOMY. WELL, because government wants Rich people to earn less, That means less spending on Expensive things buy rich people. NOW, if you are like Bill Gates, have money and want to give more to the government, MAKE A CONTRIBUTION.

[thevastconspiracycom]

iowabeef & Palumbo - EXACTLY! What the hell are you talking about SocialistLiberal, "gets schooled"? Leo Hindery obviously either isn't very smart, for being the richest man in the room, or he's simply another lying liberal. I'm guessing the latter. What does he do with his $? Put it under his mattress? Or does he buy yachts & flatscreens & pay houskeepers & reinvest it in the market? Visit my page & watch "Ed Schultz looks foolish by brilliant caller" THIS is getting schooled!

[iowabeefshowman]

Exactly where did Michael Medved get "schooled"? Nothing he said was false...

[TVZombie3000]

i love the Michael Medved's show, and Im a progressive liberal. He is a very talented show host. His show is just interesting to listen to

[SuperFifthwheel]

Government doesnt make jobs. Markets make jobs. Taxing the wealthy doesnt create jobs, however taxing them merely because they are rich is unethical. Rich people (top %2) pay %43 of ALL of americas taxes. Taxing them more is a way to punish them for just being rich, under the assumption that they gained that money unethically (which is not true). Mathews simply advocates legalizing bank robbery by making bankers the bad guys and the robbers (government) the good guys. Bad ethics at its finest

[GhostInTheShell29]

I think what people fail to understand is we do have high income taxes, and high corporate tax in the U.S.

However how much liability you have to pay it, changes as your income goes up. A company like exxon for example, will pay nothing in taxes to the u.s. government, and still recieve several billions of dollars from the u.s. government for free every year.

While a mom and pop store, or any old small business will often be taxed at full rate. deeply cutting into profits.

[GhostInTheShell29]

@GhostInTheShell29 Same is true for Income tax. Most wealthy people only recieve a small portion of their income through direct salary. So although we have a progressive salary tax... We do not have a progressive (total) income tax. Different forms of income are taxed differently, but even billionares like warren buffet pays a lower percentage of his income to taxes, then his cleaning lady does.

So taxes are high on the rich in theory, but not in practice.

[deezynar]

Rich people getting richer! Horrors!

Sounds like envy to me.

[RippIemagne]

That's the major difference between liberals and conservatives. That, to them, is owning a conservative. When a conservative says you get owned, it's usually something significant.

Also, sidenote. I love how the uploader's hypocritical comment about "leeches" is immortalized at the top of the comments.

[RippIemagne]

I love how whenever a Conservative and a Liberal debate, all the little liberal fanboys declare the Conservative "owned" or "schooled", no matter how it turned out. All I've seen here is the two blokes spouting asinine, failed Keynesian talking points, while ignoring the majority of Medved's points. Then Ed gave the liberal the last word.

[lovejen01]

@nfwvideo1 the 70,000 page book of tax laws, union legislation, special interest for companies, what business can and can't do such expanding lot the bs environment laws which have nothing to do with the environment. Look this stuff up.

[lovejen01]

@nfwvideo1 yes because of the tax increase on over regulating business, believe it or not but more jobs left under Clinton Administration than any other Administration. The fact is half of the country did not even pay taxes. The top 10% pays 70% of the gdp.

[Huntington1234567]

Love Medved.

You do not raise taxes on ANYONE, during a flagging economy.

[sinistar99]

The top 2% economy is NOT STRUGGLING. That's the problem --well one of the problems with Medved's "argument." "In a struggling economy" He even said "raising taxes on small businesses!" medved is the ultimate intellectually dishonist sophist --he's my least favorite right wing talker. And that's saying something.

[JacobDeutsch]

@sinistar99 THE ECONOMY IS STRUGGLING!!! Increasing taxes, is taking like taking gasoline out of the engine!! When your ball team is down some points, you feed your star player, what you don't see is the interconnectedness of the economy. The top 2% got there because they produced, hired people, provided goods/services that people are willing to pay at a price where he can make a profit. No business is an Island, we're part of the whole!!!

[jspecaspec23]

I really dislike Michael Medved he is a Zionist propagandist and is very rude to his audience members and anything THEY have to say he interrupts as well and calls them names so him being interrupted here is just his own medicine good for these two guys calling him out on his bogus bs.

[jspecaspec23]

The Gov will not be able to sustain itself unless we not only collect more taxes but also cut spending. We cannot just Keep taxes low and continue to spend like the problem is now nor can we just collect more taxes and spend the same we are now there must be reduced spending by gov to show the world and small businesses/large businesses that we actually are capable of stability and taxes must go back to Clinton era to help pay down the debt. Nobody understands collectively we must all help.

[m1ndfr34k117]

I love how the new definition of being "schooled" is being continuously interupted by two other people.

As Winston Churchill once said, "A government trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man trying to lift himself up by the bucket he's standing on."

Stimulus packages have never worked in the entire history of this nation and what people don't seem to understand is that you can't fix the economy over night. Tax cuts take time for the effects to come out.

[knoxvillehill]

medved is such a corporate whore , he has vast knowledge of american history but has become a revisionist of the worse kind .

i hate this freak with a passion .

[metalkev00]

@ 2:35 this douche says "...None of these women and Men...NONE of them will spend monies in a way that are productive to this economy"

How the Hell would HE know how these people will spend their money?

[akeakami2]

@metalkev00 he did say he is one of them

[Ipetratz]

To all the entrepreneurs of the world, do not be dispirited by the socialists who would have you believe that your labors are the product of somebody else and that you are exploiting society and robbing the poor of their wealth. Socialism is based on a fantasy ideal of how the world should be.

To those who are willing to be rich, I thank you for your contributions to society. Do not let Utopians tell you that you have robbed somebody of their wealth in the creation of your own. It is a lie.

[DaHonestAbe]

There haven't been any new jobs with the tax cuts. The real problem is that the tax cuts were unfunded. Never in history has there been a tax cut during a time of war. And when one increases spending, while cutting taxes, they're asking for a disaster.

[cameronsmith142]

This is what Obama pretty much said without saying it to the Republicans... "Sit ya ass down and let me fix this shit."

[JacobDeutsch]

@cameronsmith142 How's that workin' for ya!!! That hope and change thingy will be a mantra next time as well, from the other side.

[JacobDeutsch]

@cameronsmith142 How's that workin' for ya??? 9% unemployment and the African American unemployment continues to rise every 1/4 up to about 16% at this time.. yet he's keepin' hope alive!! Just like every democrat controlled inner city that goes down the drain every time they take over. The road to serfdom, is paved with good intentions!!

[AustinDpOwers89]

if you tax the rich, taking their money, so that they become poor... or that they leave the country... all you get is a nation of poor people. if you punish people for making a lot of money, no one will make alot of money. if you reward people for not making any money then everyone will make no money... it's a pretty basic incentive structure...

[rickbar123]

@AustinDpOwers89 News flash. The rich have offshored production, headquarters, bank accounts and now filter profits made in America into other countrys then bring the money back to the US at even lower tax rates. Let the rich leave, America will be better off. American companys that manufacture in China pay a full 50 % of profits to the Chinese Gov and a 100% technology transfer to the Gov. Technology you paid for via the military indust complex via your taxes. Read a book.

[AustinDpOwers89]

@rickbar123 lol "go read a book"... maybe after you get beyond go dog go, then you can talk... or better yet, when you grow up and realize you don't need the nanny state changing your diapers.

[rickbar123]

@AustinDpOwers89 Yea, sure, whatever that means ???

[AustinDpOwers89]

the reason republicans want lower taxes on "the super rich" is because its the rich that create jobs and opportunities for the poor. the poor don't own businesses. the poor can't invest the money needed to drive our economy back upward. taxing the rich simply makes the rich say, "gee the government's taking 40% of the money I make... maybe i should move my business to india where they only tax me at 20%..." so high taxes drive jobs and businesses overseas.

[SocialistLiberal]

C-ya...you won't be missed..BTW, move your family there also. We don't don't like leeches here in our country enjoying the benefits while depleting it's society.

[TheFreethinker71]

@SocialistLiberal Uh, leeches like people who pay no income taxes yet consume more social government funds than any other group? The top 10% of income earners pay 60% of the taxes in this country, yet the bottom 40% of the earners consume the vast majority of taxpayer money and don't contribute much at all in terms of wealth creation. Now, who are the "leeches" again? If your argument is against folks leeching off society, then you should be for a Flat Tax where everyone pays their fair share.

[mr8ucket]

@SocialistLiberal you have never taken an economic class in your life. your world view of the economy is the equivalent of a 5 year old who sees someone else with a bigger piece of cake and whines excessively because of it.

[lovejen01]

@SocialistLiberal AustinDpOwers89 is right and make a strong point. Ask your self this question ever been hired by a poor man? There was job increase during Bush Administration the problem is the Banking system controlled by the Federal Reserves, over regulation, housing, credit, and entrust rates policy under Clinton that is still in effect.

[Eaacker]

@AustinDpOwers89 More people are employed by small businesses than "rich people" or corporations. There are definite advantages to being incorporated in the United States, infrastructure wise, technologically speaking, and access to a skilled labor force. Corporations like Halliburton are already incorporated in countries like the UAE, and are American companies in name only. Bush corporate tax welfare hasn't stopped companies from moving jobs overseas.

[ClumsyRoot]

@AustinDpOwers89

Some rich people use their money to "create jobs"; others don't.

How about targeted tax cuts rather than an across-the-board cut for the rich? After all, small businesses are the TRUE job creators in this country.

[rickbar123]

@AustinDpOwers89 Yea let them go overseas and make stuff in shit hole India. Just dont sell your goods here in America. In fact, lets burn their products in the street. We can give a tax break to those that manufacture here for a few years. The we charge them fair rate.

[viego215]

that is the problem right their!!!! every time you bring up the tax cuts republicans strart talking about middle class when the conversation is on the high class!! the reason they wont raise the taxes on the super rich is because they pay for there campaigns simple as that!

[madamezora7]

Anyway, it's nice to see who's willing to lie outright in order to protect their own wealth- way to go Medved, you're the winner! Slimy pieces of filth who keep claiming the top 2% are "small businesses" need to have their heads surgically removed from their asses, and a large foot firmly implanted there.

[epsilon8998]

@madamezora7 What bugs me is that the other side never calls him on his bullshit. They never point out that small businesses aren't in the top 2%; that no one who runs a small business makes the kind of money (we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars) that the top 2% makes. They NEVER say that, not even Ed here. He just made the case that the tax cut didn't work in the Bush era. But that's not good enough, because they have a canned response for that too. Our commentators need to get better

[JimboUSofA]

@epsilon8998 Great point.

Ed's still better than just about anyone else around, though. Maybe his staff will read your suggestion and add it to his rhetorical tookit.

[epsilon8998]

@JimboUSofA Doubtful. The last place their gonna look for suggestions is from an openly socialist youtube channel made by amateurs. They only want to hear from other scumbag capitalists like themselves.

[madamezora7]

@epsilon8998 It's this whole stupefying era of niceness being more important than reality, I really can't stomach it. Even the broadcasters are more concerned with being seen as aggressive than being accurate. Interrupting people and being loud isn't aggressive journalism for some reason, but telling the facts as they stand and not backing down somehow makes you a Big Fat Meanie.

And the right NEVER misses a chance to play the hurt feelings card. I despise these people.

[epsilon8998]

Why do conservatives like Medved always bring up small businesses in this argument? Does he know who the top 2% is? Does he know how much money a small business ranks in? If a business owner is in the top 2%, then he's not a small business owner anymore. Nobody's talking about raising taxes on small business or the middle class. The argument he's bringing up is simply a straw man.

[julsHz]

@epsilon8998 "If a business owner is in the top 2%, then he's not a small business owner anymore. "

Well said. This is exactly the confusion they hope to create.

[Roonskii]

@epsilon8998 Well stated.

[AustinDpOwers89]

@epsilon8998 the top 2% is not the small business owner, but the business itself. many small businesses file their taxes as individuals. If your business doesn't make more than $250,000 a year... then u're probably going out of business... which just means even more lost jobs and worse news for the american economy.

[epsilon8998]

@AustinDpOwers89 No, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. You don't need to make a billion dollars like the top 2% to survive. They can give up some of that money for the common good, since chances are they'll just be using it to speculate on bonds or to buy virtual property online for $350,000 a pop.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 And you think the government is better at spending that money than the rich person would be?? If you think higher taxes furthers the "common good", then I feel sorry for you!

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 Newsflash buddy: we don't ned higher taxes to pay for government services. All the money we need is already there. The federal government operates on a multi trillion dollar budget, except most of that money is wasted away on frivolous things like wars, inefficient healthcare and social security, a massively wasteful transportation system, and tax breaks and tax loop holes for the rich. Wake up to reality kid, the real world is nothing like what Fucks News tells you

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 So, would raising taxes on the super rich improve the economy?? It wouldn't and the only reason liberals are for raising taxes on the rich is because they want to distribute those tax funds to the lower classes which doesn't create any wealth. All it does is create a class of government dependent masses, which is what makes liberals salivate. Start a business if you want to create wealth because government spending won't!!

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 The world already has plenty enough wealth to provide for every living human being ten times over. The last thing we need is more wealth. The problem is not the lack of wealth, but the misuse of it. Recessions are the result of an uneven distribution system that funnels most of the consumptive power toward one social class over another. The problem is that the class who gets this power is the minority of the population, leaving the vast majority with no spending power at all

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 By your statements, I can tell you have no idea what wealth is or how to create it. Wealth is productivity and freedom. Countries with high levels of both are the wealthiest and best nations. When government steps in and tries to even the playing field is when things really get fucked up and recessions are created. In the US, no corporation can force you to buy their products without the aid of government. Governments create uneven distribution-not capitalism!

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 BAHAHAHA. By your post I can tell you have no idea of what reality is. Did the government create the uneven distribution that caused the Great Depression? No, there was hardly any government programs medling in the economy at all. Everything was privatized, and it was speculation and credit borrowing that caused it--which is widely the same now. Corporations must steal wealth from others to "create" it... which in their case is not wealth creation but wealth usury and larsony.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 As a matter of fact, yes, the US government did create the Great Depression by severe "mismanagement rather than by inherent instability of the private economy" (Milton Fridman, Capitalism & Freedom) I can give you other sources too; Amity Schlaes in her book The Forgotten Man argues through facts that the govt worsened the Great Depression through its restriction of the money supply by 1/3 and by disastrous tarriffs (Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act) that caused severe inflation.

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 Inflation wasn't the problem you idiot. In fact it was the opposite of inflation, because prices kept on dropping to rock bottom levels. Did your piece of shit books tell you about the millions of farmers who were dumping all their milk into the streets because there was an oversupply of milk? They did it to try to raise prices. The problem in the great depression was not too much government, but too much competition, too much production. That's what makes recessions.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Well why don't you read those books instead of throwing childish insults at me! Too much competition?? Oh please!! You have neglected and chose to ignore the great depression of 1873 and the great depression of 1920. Why don't you read some real histroy instead of reading John Kenneth Gailbraith's account. Both of those previous depressions hit and the govt. did nothing. The economy recovered in less than one year in both instances due to the lack of govt intervention. Read a book!

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 I do read books and they all point to the fact that Milton Friedman is an idiotic blowhard. His primary assumption that "the individual [has the] freedom to make the most of his capacities and opportunities according to his own lights, subject only to the proviso that he not interfere with the freedom of other individuals to do the same" is short sighted and contradictory to itself...

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Have you ever read any of Friedman's books or do you just read the books that say he is an idiotic blowhard? What I heard you say is that you criticize him in absentia, but never have picked up any of his books and actually read them. Study some of his arguments before you bash.

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 I have studied arguments like his and they are all rubbish

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 ... This is because human beings are not an island: what they do affects and is affected by everything and everyone else around them. Their existence is not solely dependant on their own activities, but their interactions and activities with the people they associate with. Thus, capitalist activity is an interference on other people because it reduces their purchasing ability by extracting the surplus value from their labor. This is the equivalent of the theft of their labor

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 What is your economic alternative to Capitalism then, if it is so unfair and exploitative? What wonderful economic system is the ultimate panacea for the world? You seem to be great at bashing Capitalism, so what is your answer to make the world more fair and just?

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 My economic alternative exists right now, and it is what you are using to post your messages right now. It's called the Internet: and it is the future of collaborative, transparent, and free production... What some people (i.e. those who know what they are talking about) would call COMMUNISM

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 So the internet will provide food to everyone? And provide services to everyone? The internet is not an organism that grows like an apple tree. People have to design it and have to provide hardware for it for it to work and that costs money. Your statement makes no sense. The internet is like Communism, how?? It's free production? Huh? If it's Communism, then why do Communist societies want to restrict its access (China, North Korea, Cuba)?

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 Those "communist" countries are communist in name only. They are run by totalitarian parties who adhere to the same kind of anti-democratic platform as corporate entities: both types of organizations want to limit the kind of free exchange of information and collaboration afforded by the internet, precisely because it poses a threat to their power. See the ACTA act that will limit the use of media. Wikileaks has also exposed the US as being against free speech on the internet

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Again, you keep on saying that corporations have all this power to steal from people and control the world, but you also keep dodging my fundamental point which is that corporations have no power to take anything from anyone unless the exchange is voluntary. When you insert govt into the equation THAT is when you take away the freedom of people to make their own choices.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 And why won't you answer my question about individual freedom? Do you want individuals to have the power to make their own choices on how to live their lives or do you want govt to do that for them? And don't give me these long and angry repsonses this time about corporate theft. Tell me flat out; do you favor personal freedoms over govt control-YES OR NO?? Marxism is about govt control to create a classless society and rejects the theory of personal freedoms.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 It's almost comical that you go on and on about the evil corporations that are raping the world, but you won't take a stand on individual freedom. You know that Marxism doesn't allow for people to be free and advocates state control. You have never addressed or defended this part of Marxist philosophy. You have never answered the question as to why Marxist & Communist govts (if they are so great) have had to keep all their people within its borders by threats of violence.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 If you think Marxism and Communism are such wonderful paradises, why don't you move to North Korea or Cuba? They are nations that practice Marxism, aren't they? Why don't you go to those countries and live in the world that you so staunchly advocate? I'm sure they would welcome you in!!

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Cat got your tongue?? Aren't you going to defend your Marxist paradise? I haven't heard a response from you on individual freedoms. Why are you so against people being free to make their own decisions? I know why you haven't responded; it's because you know Marxism is bullshit and doesn't work in practice. You can't bring yourself to defend the Marxist concept that says that no one can have individual freedom because that would threaten a classless societal structure.

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 I've been spending most of my time working on a new video. Unlike you, I'm actually a productive contributor to the youtube community. Unfortunately this does take time, and most of what I've been doing online has been devoted to finishing it up. Arguing with capitalists on the internet is distracting, and frankly isn't very fun, so I would much rather do that instead. However, I have started a lengthly reply to your comments. I'll pm it to you when it's done.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Still waiting on your defense of how great Marxism is and how you don't want people to have any freedom to make their own choices. Ever noticed that those who demand "power to the people" also believe that people can't do anything right without government supervision? Hmm, strange how Marxism preaches that very contradiction!

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 I haven't worked on it. Frankly I don't even care anymore. I'm doing much more important things, like scratching my balls lol. If you want you can watch/comment on my videos instead. Bye!

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 It's not that you don't care-it's that you know that your Marxist ideology is total and complete garbage due to the simple fact that human beings yearn to be free and not have their lives planned out for them. You know that the concept of a forced and structured classless society can never exist because people want the freedom to choose their own path. Have fun scratching your balls because in your little Marxist world it would probably be punished by years in a Gulag.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 It's really funny how you subscribe to an ideology that is based almost solely off of telling others how to live their lives, yet you want the freedom to do what you want to do. Your a walking contradiction man!! Your just a scared little Marxist who cannot defend your positions against simple questions when it comes to human freedom. You never once answered my question as to why you defend a system that is about controlling others-it's because you can't defend it and you know it.

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 You should read a book! One that doesn't suck so much ass as the Chicago or Austrian school

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Have you read any of the Austrian School or Chicago School's books? You seem to really hate freedom of people to make their own choices, don't you?

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 I've read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" and it was a rotten piece of garbage just like I expected it to be.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Again, you refuse to answer simple questions, don't you? Do you hate personal freedom & allowing people to make their own choices?? YES or NO?? Being a Marxist you can't possibly fathom & you loathe someone deciding things on their own. Deciding to buy, eat, and consume what they want. This concept is really abhorent to you, isn't it? You want to control people & constantly tell others what to do. You really need to wake up to the fact that people don't want your Marxist paradise!

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 And as for those recessions: you pay too much attention to trying to justify the private sector, and too little in looking into the root causes of them. The 1873 crisis was preceded by a huge boom in railroad construction and speculation, including overbuilding of factories, docks, and other facilities. Similar over expansion was going on in Europe, with the unification of Germany/Austria and the building of the French empire...

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 ... In addition, those recessions lasted much longer than just "one year" causing governments in both continents to panic over what to do. In both cases, the solution they found was to make the government more protectionist with their domestic industries, and to enact more legislation to increase tarrifs, and to nationalize selected banks and industries. You are the one who needs to learn his history, fool.

[epsilon8998]

@epsilon8998 the 1920 recession was a different case, however. It was not necessarily caused by over construction, but a sudden increase in the labor force, which increased unemployment and the competition among laborers for jobs.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 There are many books out there now that have shot gaping holes in your theory that the private markets caused the Great Depression (govt created the crash). And you both ignored & didn't address my point that no corporation can force you to buy its products without govt assistance. How is you choosing what cell phone carrier to use or what car to buy "stealing" from you? Without govt intervention, companies are forced to compete with each other & that is best for consumers.

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 See again you only focus your viewpoint to a narrow perspective of reality. The actual truth is that there is much more to just buying and selling of a product: there is also its production and the social relationships that the nature of that production creates--namely one of extreme alienation and exploitation, which is the root of corporate theft. Your narrow philosophy causes you to look the other way in these matters, so you choose to ignore it rather than confront it.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 You still have avoided and not answered my question, so I will ask again: can a corporation force anyone to buy their products without govt assistance? Yes or no??

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 Definitely yes. Corporations use all sorts of slimy ways to influence buyers decisions, both directly and indirectly. The indirect method is facilitated through massive institutional propagandizing (what you call advertising) to influence purchasing decisions by telling the consumer that he or she is incomplete if they do not buy their commodities...

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Slimy advertising is NOT FORCE!! Institutional propagandizing is NOT FORCE!! I'm sorry, your argument has all sorts of big words, but still doesn't prove that corporations can FORCE anyone to buy their products without government intervention. Blab all you want, but you didn't prove your case. Consumers still can make their own decisions on what they choose to purchase. No one has a gun to your head to get Verizon or buy Shell gasoline or eat Doritos regardless of slick advertising.

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 Your definition of force is circular and tremendously problematic. It only includes actions that prevent one from conducting activity on the marketplace. Using government regulation to prevent a corporation from paying its workers dirt level wages is "force," according to you, while that same corporation hiring private thugs to break up worker unions and intimidate others from fighting against the boss is not. One is justified force, the other is not. I'll let you decide which.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 WOW!! You still can't answer my question and you go off on these tangents that have very little to do with what I am talking about. Again, can a company force consumers to buy their products without govt assitance?? I'm talking about consumer products, NOT union intimidation. The answer is NO!! I own a company myself, but I cannot force consumers to buy my products. I have to offer a good service at a good price for consumers to buy from me. What don't you understand about that??

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 I have answered your question. The fact that you chose to ignore it or simply didn't understand it does not make it wrong. It's not a tangent to address the fallacies in your argument as such. You need to look into the logic of your argument when you're trying to define force. It is circular and axiomatic: you only limit your conception of force to actions that limit corporate power in the market, while disregarding the fact that corporations use force to secure that power.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Do corporations use their own power or the power of govt to get their way? They use govt to get their way. That is my whole point. Without the power of a govt rule or regulation, a corporation cannot force anyone to buy their products. That is called crony capitalism and I am deadset against it. Corporations should be on their own when it comes to consumers choosing or not choosing to consume their products. Govt should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 ... These advertising methods include telling children to nag to their parents to buy a product, and they even hire scientists to study their nagging to determine the most effective way to induce parents to buy more. More direct methods include imperialistic policies of invading countries and building up factories in impoverished markets. This has the effect of driving out peasant based competition by driving prices so low that they could not possibly match it...

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Nagging kids is NOT FORCE!! If you let your kid constantly nag you into buying a them Happy Meal, then you are a bad parent and have no control. And your impoverished market argument holds no water. Where would these poor countries be if corporations never set up shop there and provided the locals with jobs above the local average wage? If peasant competition was so great, the country would be wealthy and not poor. Corporations enrich countries with jobs, not exploit the locals.

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 There are ways to use force without doing it directly with a gun. Controlling resources to starve a population out is one such method. Locking someone in a room and shutting off the oxygen is another. Force can be used in numerous ways, which is why statutory rape is illegal and having sex with someone while they're passed out drunk can also be. Tell me, you're not for rape, are you?

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 ... the peasants themselves soon find that, unable to make a living as they used to do so by farming their own land, they will either have to sell their land and find another means of producing their own livelihood (which in many cases drives them so deep into debt that they could never pay it off) or, they can choose to work for the corporate factories for pittance wages. Hardly a choice at all when neither case is preferable to how they lived before the corporations came in.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from and I think you are a big believer in BIG govt. And by your statements, you don't believe people should have any freedom at all and govt should direct all of our lives because the evil corporations just exploit and steal from us. Are you now waiting for our all powerful govt to tell you when you can wipe your ass after you take a crap? Or are you just waiting for your govt approved toilet paper to arrive?

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 I'm a Marxist. I believe in the establishment of a PROLETARIAN government to mitigate the disaster that is the capitalist production system. The reason you do not want a big government running things is because the government you imagine doing it is a BOURGEOIS form of government: precisely the one that is running things now. This form of government is the one responsible for all the things you think you are against, such as: fascism, stalinism, and post Maoist China.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Well that says a lot!! Every instance of the attempt to institute planned economies around the world has been a complete and total disaster. If planned economies were so great, then why did they constantly have mass surpluses of things they DIDN'T need (tractors) and mass shortages of things they DID need (food)? The role of prices takes care of that. If Marxist countries are such a paradise, why did those countries have to keep all their citizens within its borders by FORCE?

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 Europe hasn't been a disaster. Canada isn't a disaster. China isn't a disaster. Post-war Japan wasn't a disaster. Planned communities in America aren't a disaster. Corporations (another form of planned economy) aren't a disaster by your own definitions (though they would be by mine, because of the human cost they incur). The Soviet Union's own 5 year plans were actually a tremendous success. Tell me again, what failed planned economies are you thinking about?

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Okay, if I have to explain it to you this way: planned economies fail becaue no one central bureaucrat or office can possibly set prices for every item in a society. Even simple items that have many components have hundreds of parts with costs (i.e. transportation, manufacturing, distribution). To think that your utopian Marxist govt can possibly control all of that is a fantasy. Prices and markets do all that with very little planning from the govt.-they do it with individuals...

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 ..pursuing their own course and their own destiny. I don't get how arrogant you are to think that you want to impose your total control through govt over all the people of a society. People don't naturally want to be controlled or told what to do or have their lives planned out fof them. And I know YOU don't want to be controlled either, but you feel everyone else needs to be. Boy, you have some big balls to think that it's your job to plan our society!! People want freedom!

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 Everything you said there could be applied to an argument against corporations using their legal and economic power to control whole societies in the third world to open their markets for them so they can come in and exploit their labor force. Usually the people of those countries don't want to be controlled by those corporations or the governments that cooperate with them, but being that the governments want to industrialize, they open up their arms to them and welcome them in

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Your exploitation argument is totally false. If a country is a sea of poverty, corruption, and dispair, you think the people in the third world wouldn't jump at the opportunity to get out of their state of misery? A company would come in and pay better than the average wage of the area because if they didn't, no one would want to work there. Why would they work there if they could make more money doing something else? You think people want to stay poor??

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 So being a Marxist, you believe no one should own any property and the state controls everything including all activity by the people?? WOW!! Sounds great!! Unfortunately, that has been tried (Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba) and has failed miserably. The only reason China is exploding economically along with countries like Vietnam is because they have embraced a capitalistic economic model. Both countries ditched Marxism and went with capitalism because it works.

[epsilon8998]

@TheFreethinker71 Nope, wrong again. Most Marxists like myself disown Stalinism in favor of a more genuine socialism: one that Marx and Engels actually advocated. And only one of those examples you cited are actually gone: the other three--China, Cuba, and North Korea--are still alive and well. The Soviet Union fell for all sorts of reasons stemming from various inefficiencies and flaws unrelated to any sort of socialist mode of production (which they largely were not).

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 So you think China is alive and moving forward splendidly because of Marxism? Communism and Marxism are not why China is doing well economically; it's because they have taken a route of Supply-Side Economics. And North Korea and Cuba may be alive, but they certainly aren't doing well. I'm sorry but your Marxist regimes around the globe are not in a healthy state. North Korea's people are literally starving and Fidel Castro recently admitted that the Communism model has not worked.

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Then why were there constant shortages of food and other needed supplies in the Soviet Union? Why did the average Soviet citizen have to wait in lines most of the day to get necessary items? I ask again, why did the Soviet Union have to keep all its people within its borders with fences and machine-guns if it was so wonderful? You know the answer, but you refuse to admit it; people want freedom and if all society doesn't buy into a system, it doesn't work (Marxism & Communism).

[TheFreethinker71]

@epsilon8998 Tell me, in your Marxist paradise, how is it that the Marxist leaders (North Korea, Cuba, China) live much better than the average citizens do? They have all the trappings of power and influence, but isn't Marxism about a society without classes and everyone is the same? Do you really think that Marxist leaders are going to buy that BS philosophy that everyone is equal and eat the same food, drive the same car, and live in the same houses? Human beings are not programmed like that.

[JacobDeutsch]

@epsilon8998 The definition of a small business is a business with less than 500 employees. The fact is that the problem is not revenue but an addiction to spending. Giving a dollar to te government is like giving just one shot of heroin to an addict, It's always been like this since Roman times, when do-gooders get in officee!!!

[agitcam]

Medved is a slimy little twit.

[whiteliberal1]

@agitcam Most of them are........Especially his counterpart Eric "the weasel" Cantor!

[Zakdayak]

Medved likes to interrupt. Doesn't he?

[TheForwardGaze]

Medved's not a dummy. He's knows he's selling snake oil. It's an intellectual game for him to dupe as many people as he can.

[hentia2]

That Medved is so filled with crap that it's leaking out of his mouth.