Slashdot Mirror

Specious argument at best. But sure, let's play the math game.

The top 10% currently own 77% of American wealth., and the wealth inequality trend is getting much worse for the poor. WIth that, I'd call the rich paying 66% of the taxes to be a lighter burden than you'd have us believe.

Because sociopaths' reward system is only triggered by outrageous behavior such as inflicting violence or engaging in a sex act. Throw in an inordinate amount of drugs and they can't get off unless they get really creepy/freaky. Cocaine/meth makes people weird after prolonged use.

The deep state does prefer these people because they will perform as required and can be blackmailed.

https://billmoyers.com/2014/02...

The U.S. government is, by some measures, the most violent government on earth. United States taxpayers pay for more than 740 U.S. military bases and offices.

The effect of the U.S. government's invasion of Iraq was destroy the Iraq government, so that there could be more war. Now Iraq is no longer a managed country, and is destroyed as a society.

U.S. taxpayers pay "... expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest".

Some people want to kill other people. If you are a U.S. citizen, are you comfortable taking money from your bank account to pay for killing other people and destroying their property? Some of the money that is taken from you is taken using inflation.

The founders of Google are Jews. Some Jews like the fact that the U.S. government defends Israel, and those who aren't Jews pay most of the cost. That is a pro-Jewish comment: It helps people understand one of the ways in which the Jewish culture is self-destructive. Maybe that understanding will help people of the Jewish culture stop being self-destructive.

Truth.

Truth.

Truth.

Truth.

I get it though, you're too afraid to admit what the GOP has become in its quest for political power.

My point (and the point of the past few posts of our conversation) was that her doing that shouldnt cause confusion in regards to her actual political beliefs because it's commonly done.

And where did she actually demonstrate that she has "actual political beliefs"? As far as I can tell, she has no "actual political beliefs" at all, all she has is an insatiable desire for power for its own sake.

In fact, Hillary told us herself that she will say whatever people want to hear, on several occasions: (1) in her explanation on her change of position on gay marriage, (2) in her/your explanation that she just told Sanders voters what they wanted to hear, and (3) in her "public/private position" statement to Wall St, (4) in her meeting with Warren. Her opportunism and lack of character was also evident in how she dealt with her husband's repeated infidelity.

https://thinkprogress.org/weal...

The top ten percent of earners in the United States took home more than 50 percent of all income in 2012, the highest amount ever recorded since data was first collected in 1917, according to an updated report from economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty.

While the wealthiest took a big hit during the financial crisis, theyâ(TM)ve almost fully recovered. Last year, income for the top 1 percent of earners âoeincreased sharply,â the report notes, growing by nearly 20 percent, while the bottom 99 percent only saw money rise by 1 percent. âoeIn sum,â the authors write, âoetop 1% incomes are close to full recovery while bottom 99% incomes have hardly started to recover.â

This follows a trend since the recovery officially began. From 2009 to 2012, income for the 1 percent grew by 31.4 percent, while everyone else only saw it grow by 0.4 percent. That means the 1 percent âoecaptured 95% of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery,â they write.

http://equitablegrowth.org/res...

"U.S. top one percent of income earners hit new high in 2015 amid strong economic growth"
"The top 1 percent income earners in the United States hit a new high last year, according to the latest data from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The bottom 99 percent of income earners registered the best real income growth (after factoring in inflation) in 17 years, but the top one percent did even better. The latest IRS data show that incomes for the bottom 99 percent of families grew by 3.9 percent over 2014 levels, the best annual growth rate since 1998, but incomes for those families in the top 1 percent of earners grew even faster, by 7.7 percent, over the same period. (See Figure 1.)"

http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/...

https://thinkprogress.org/the-...
Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100 to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000 to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains.

Saezâ(TM)s new data show that income for the 1 percent did actually decrease somewhat in 2013 as compared to 2012: its share of income fell from 22.8 percent to 20.1 percent.

Note: The top 1% alone earned 20% of the entire nation's income. It's easy to hit 50% when you go to the top 10%.

here's updated 2015 data...
https://taxfoundation.org/summ...
Top 10% 45.87% of the total income.

The ENTIRE bottom 50% earned only 11.49% of the entire nation's income.

If you allow any kind of deductions at all, their taxes are going to be much lower because even tiny deductions are a huge portion of their income. But worst case, let them starve- the most they could pay would be 11.49%.

But given the crippling size of state and local taxes combined with social security taxes, many would starve and go homeless.

Here's a state by state breakdown of how much people pay in state, local, and excise taxes .

http://www.itep.org/whopays/fu...

Excise taxes are things like $2 on your cell phone bill and $70 a year for your car. Likewise, the poorest get no share of pr

I've got this theory that alt-white types are also anti-free-software types.
I think there is a real parallel between those who say GNU is not Free because it prevents people from using the code and then locking out downstream users. Its the same mentality that says, "You are a hypocrite for not tolerating my intolerance." Also reactionary color-blindness - the kind of person who knows exactly one quote from Dr King and misrepresents it to argue against everything Dr King stood for.

Lacking a coherent ideology they make facile arguments that mimic the form of the arguments that they oppose while deliberately ignoring the real-world results.

I guess you did not read the message at the top of the Wikipedia page "This article or section might be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective. (February 2017)"

Try this from three years ago: http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/...

Yes, the current administration is completely delusional. But so is the opposition, which previously was happy to give power to the Leviathan without considering what would happen if that power were to fall into the hands of less congenial folk.

It is telling that you only heard about the Deep State once Trump came along.

The U.S. government will spend a trillion dollars for new nuclear weapons.

War is very profitable for those who design it because they can hide what they are doing from the taxpayers.

Puhhhleaaze. Stop being a tool for Apple. Apple has their money abroad because they don't want to pay the paltry effective tax rate of less than 18% - but yet they still want to have access to the American consumer market. Apple is a tax cheat that gets away with paying 0 taxes in Ireland, though that is not where they are headquartered. The European Union is starting to chase them now like the tax cockroaches they are.

It's not that the tax laws are idiotic. It's that Apple wants to pay ZERO taxes. It's too bad that another president fell for this old story before.

They have teams of lawyers that know the tax laws. The only struggle they have with them is that they exist, not that they are somehow "idiotic."

Please spare us the woeful persecution tales. You can be matched.

An honest man might bemoan the acrimony. A dishonest one pretends it is one-sided.

https://thinkprogress.org/afte...

http://billmoyers.com/story/go...

It is no coincidence that 17 states have enacted new voting restrictions just in time for the 2016 presidential election — or that 22 states have toughened access to the ballot box since 2010. Here are those 17 states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.

It’s also no coincidence that 16 of these 17 states (save only Rhode Island) have legislatures that are dominated entirely by Republicans. NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice calls this “part of a broader movement to curtail voting rights, which began after the 2010 election, when state lawmakers nationwide started introducing hundreds of harsh measures making it harder to vote.”

In North Carolina — home to perhaps the most gerrymandered legislature in America — the judges were even more emphatic as they connected the dots between the GOP-implemented voter-ID laws and the desire on behalf of Republicans to tamp down the turnout of minority voters unlikely to cast ballots for conservatives. Their ruling painstakingly dismisses any problem with voter fraud in North Carolina, and compiles voluminous evidence that “the ‘problem’ the majority in the General Assembly sought to remedy was emerging support for the minority party.” The legislature, according to the ruling, “unmistakably” sought to “entrench itself” by “targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party.”

sure sounds like fraud to me.
the real kind.

and then there was Wisconsin shutting down dmvs or changing their hours, to make them difficult to access.
Georgia has moved polling places out of poor and/or black neighborhoods, switching peoples polling places from across the street to 3 buses across town.
your party is blatantly deceitful, guilty of blatantly rigging the vote, yet you call democrats the party of deceit?

and now you idiots are calling for the 19th amendment to be repealed, because if woman couldn't vote, trump would easily win?

let me spell it out for you jack: the party of voter fraud is the republican party

This time we'll just let your FALSE source expose himself
Dark Money Fueling Climate Change Denial
Oddly enough, mostly the same people who wrote all those glowing pro-smoking lies

And the puppet behind your puppet theater source? the always ignorant and usually easy to debunk Steven Goddard known fraudster
And just what is the truth?
The 8 big lies of denialism exposed
Your crimes against logic are therefore "argumentum ad populum" "argumentum ad venicundium" and simple lying.

Now you have a bunch of activist judges making legal leaps and declaring Voter ID illegal not because it's against the Constitution, but because it "unfairly affects minorities".

It's not the voter ID that's against the Constitution, dumbshit. It's the "unfairly affects minorities" part.

http://www.politico.com/story/...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontl...

You will notice that states that enacted these strict voter ID laws still allow absentee ballots. The Federal courts might not have decided against these states if Republican officials in those states didn't come out and flat admit that they were passing these laws to keep minorities from voting

http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

But I'm sure the new excuse for these statements is that they were being "sarcastic". That's what Republicans say now when they get their tongues caught in a zipper.

Why do these people keep doing the same reports year after year? Every previous report has said the same thing.

From 2009

August, 2013

August 2013 again

September 2013

June 2014

We don't need any more studies to state the obvious.

If everyone has enough (leaving the definition as an exercise for the reader), why should I care that some people are rich?

Because maybe one of the reasons everyone doesn't have enough is that it's being siphoned off by a very few at the top.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/...

For example, the only policy that has worked to raise the "lower bound" is increasing power in the hands of working people via organized labor. The more money that's concentrated at the top, the more they can spend to destroy collective bargaining and unions, which are demonstrably the only thing that have ever worked.

Personal change is of course an important place to start, butwhat we seem to have forgotten since the civil rights movements of the 60's and 70's is that systematic change at the level which is needed to address the causes and effects of climate change can only come about through an organized movement.

The Bill Moyers interview linked below discusses the difference between consumer focused change where we can "go green" by changing our own habits and citizen focused change which involves exercising our collective political power to effect change at the policy level.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/01/04/citizens-not-consumers-are-key-to-solving-climate-crisis/

Excerpt:

Each of us has two different roles we play in society, almost like two muscles: a consumer muscle and a citizen muscle. Our consumer muscle is spoken to and validated constantly. We’re called upon to use it every day and, as a result, we’re really good at it. It’s overdeveloped so much that being a consumer is our primary role in society so much that the words “consumer” and “person” are used interchangeably. At the same time, our citizen muscle has atrophied. So when we’re faced with problems as gigantic as disruption of the global climate, we stick with the familiar consumer muscle. We buy green products, switch our lightbulbs, reject bottled water, carry a reusable bag to the store. Now, don’t get me wrong – those are all very good things to do. But those are not about making transformative change like we need right now. To do this, we need to step out of our consumer role and into our citizen role and work together, through our democratic structures, to achieve big bold change. Perfecting our day to day eco-choices can be a step in the right direction, or it can be a distraction if we’re deluded into thinking that we’ve done our part since we shopped at Whole Foods. That’s why the subtitle of our last movie is “Why citizens, not shoppers, hold the key to a better world.” We need to start exercising our citizen muscles again.

The U.S. government's actions against ISIS cause ISIS, in some areas, to have more support. It's like world-wide advertising: "Want to participate in something big? Fight the U.S. government."

Mostly secret agencies of the U.S. government use violence as a reason to be violent. Iraq was a country with a violent dictator, Saddam Hussein. People inside the U.S. government saw that as a reason to be more violent, and as a way to make money. The U.S. government has been FAR more violent than was Saddam Hussein. That was after the U.S. government encouraged Saddam Hussein to be violent toward Iran.

Those who work for violent U.S. government agencies can get promotions is they can find more ways to encourage violence.

Before the U.S. government invaded Iraq, it was a country. Now Iraq is no longer a managed country, and is destroyed as a society. The cost from the pockets of U.S. taxpayers: "... expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest".

Some people in the U.S. had bad childhoods and love violence so much that they are willing to be poor because of violence. The U.S. is no longer a democracy, it is partly a dictatorship of the violent and partly a dictatorship of the rich. Violent-minded people have control.

By some measures, the U.S government is the most violent in the world.

More on ALEC http://billmoyers.com/segment/...

I know Sanders won't get everything he wants, but socialism isn't something positive in this country.

The term isn't seen as positive, but in practice it's fairly well liked. Social Security and Medicare are pretty good examples. Many of his policies are favored by a majority. His problem is really an image problem. If he called himself a Social Democrat he would be more well-received than calling himself a Democratic Socialist, even though they both describe the same kinds of policies. Referring to himself as a socialist causes a kind of knee-jerk reaction in a lot of people who just instantly hate him. The label "socialist" is the only label that will cause fewer people to vote for you than if you label yourself "atheist". That's changing among younger people, but it's a fact. It has a bad reputation (possibly deservedly so), but in practice a little bit of socialism can do a lot of good. That's what he's trying to illustrate with the comparisons to some of the European socialist countries like Denmark or the Nordic countries.

But, all labels aside, this is really what I want to move away from. That cluster in the upper right (Clinton included) I think is a problem for this country. We just need more voices and more ideas, and we as a country need to be able to listen and react to those in a rational way without just casually dismissing anything that isn't conservative authoritarian. It may take someone on the far left to help pull the country more towards the center.

What does the EPA do? Enforce laws passed by Congress. This is preschool-level civics, here.

Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency to, you know, protect the environment. So, when excess CO2 was determined to be a threat to the environment, the EPA was therefore authorized by existing law to take steps to address the problem. That's not my legal reasoning, that's the reasoning of the Supreme Court.

So why do the corporations pay taxes to government if they control it?

Have you missed the millions of complaints about corporations legally not paying taxes?

Why have business executive been going to jail?

Don't forget, Ken Lay was found innocent in court. How many bank execs went to jail for the fraudulent credit swaps? http://www.mintpressnews.com/i... http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05... The only banking exec sent to jail was one immigrant. The hate of immigrants exceeded the protection of bankers, and served up a single exception, so nobody could say "nobody" went to jail. Though his crime was in internal fraud to get a bonus, not defrauding anyone outside the company.

So the number of business execs who went to jail for defrauding customers is still zero. One exec went to jail for defrauding shareholders.

As that was defrauding shareholders, I think we can say that nobody went to jail for causing the largest recession ever recorded.

Except that, cases like Citizens United relied on the idea that donation is like speech. It's one thing to have a general feeling that American Politicians are corrupt. It's another, completely, to have hard evidence about specific numbers of families. Lots of the scientific process is about questioning basic assumptions and when they turn out to be true, that's science too. In this particular case, last time we had a debate about the USA becoming an oligarchy there were comments warning people that they would lose power by opposing it and other ones claiming that this is about the US system working as intended and blocking change.

In reality the fact that a supposedly "liberal" president is passing (effectively) laws like the TPP which are specifically designed to introduce new protections for corporate interests over the interests of the people who voted for him and the fact that this was started by a supposedly "conservative" president, whilst being specifically designed to increase the power of the government to push corporate interests over the interests of the people who voted for him shows that the US constitution, with it's wonderful idea of separation of powers, has well and truly bypassed by people rich enough to control both major political parties, the courts and the president simultaneously.

"Creative Destruction" is the destruction of the "worse" which is replaced by the "better". Hopefully resulting in better overall social welfare.

Would the destruction of the current model of the taxi industry lead to higher general social welfare? If the choice is between concentrating more of the profit at the top and less of it among the workers, probably not. If it means more profit for workers, and more workers, then it would improve social welfare.

Trying to identify which model improves social welfare is the key. Change is scary and disruptive, and not always good. But without technology-driven change, we'd still have a wagon-wheel manufacturing industry. On the other hand, we have lost a great deal of manufacturing, with all the costs and benefits that entails. IMO the costs outweigh the benefits in losing manufacturing.

Unfortunately, we don't see creative destruction in other important areas such as finance or politics. The financial system imploded in 2008, due to consistent patterns of misjudgment and malfeasance. But, they are among the biggest donors to federal politicians, so they received a rescue. I can understand saving the banks, but no executives were penalized, much less jailed. And the business models didn't change. Too Big To Fail just got bigger. Also, we don't see creative destruction in politics where the game is heavily rigged to favor the incumbent. If taxi drivers can convince (i.e. contribute sufficiently to) local, state and federal politicians, they may be able to save their business model, regardless of the social welfare implications.

That's why Aleynikov has been hounded for the past several years and no banking executives have been criminally prosecuted for their role in causing the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression.

That's why a single trader is being held for causing the flash crash, doing things that the big companies do, but making the mistake of not having political connections.

This is not about fair market competition. This is about winning at all costs, with the referees (politicians) are paid off by the wealthy players.

Sometimes, the judge denies the right to jury nullification: http://billmoyers.com/segment/...

It was no big secret. A lot of the Republican loudmouths were bragging about it.

Some of the Republican leadership even apologized for it: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Clinton's welfare reform was a disaster for the poor, and indirectly for the rest of the country.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/...

http://www.thenation.com/blog/...

I remember the Reagan presidency. Reagan made a deal with the Soviets to let the Soviet "Jews" emigrate. I knew a lot of Soviet Jews. They had to claim that they had suffered anti-Semitism and were victims in order to immigrate here as refugees. They had lawyers and fixers who would copy the identical stories of anti-Semitism for new immigrants and hand them into the INS. They would fabricate their stories. It was a scam. A lot of them weren't even Jewish; they forged documents. They immediately got welfare, housing, health care, jobs, vocational training programs, and free college tuition. They were getting more benefits than I could get. It's no wonder they liked capitalism so much. For them, capitalism was a series of handouts that they didn't have to work for. That's welfare, Reagan style.

I know a black woman who worked for the welfare department, and she was annoyed at the way the Soviet Jews would come in and act as if they were entitled to welfare. It was easier for them to get welfare than native Americans. A lot of them turned out to be criminals, and you can still read stories in the New York Times and Daily News about Russian Jews from that immigration who got caught in all kinds of illegal schemes, particularly welfare and Medicaid/Medicare fraud.

The Russian immigrants had several magazines, the most popular of which was Metropol. I once talked to the editor of Metropol. He said that as soon as they became citizens, the Russian immigrants registered Republican and voted for Ronald Reagan. He said once in the while he would get a letter saying, "Why don't we vote for Democrats," but no more than 1 in 100. It was the most brazen quid pro quo. Reagan gave them handouts, and in return they voted solid Republican. Giuliani did the same thing. This is what the Republicans accuse Obama of doing. https://danieljmitchell.files....

The same thing happened to the Cubans in Miami. And all the other favored minority immigrants.

One of the fundamentally dishonest things that conservatives do when this topics comes up is mention George Soros. But nothing compares to the Koch brothers, and conservative money in general:
http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/...

It's not 2 sides of the same coin when you compare the amount of money, although neither side is likely to offer reform on this matter.

According to Isaac Asimov, lower birth rates are attributed to giving women more power in all aspects of society. When women are empowered in more than just being a good mother, they don't feel the need to have all those children.

See his interview with Bill Moyers from 1988

http://billmoyers.com/content/...

"That will, in turn, enable governments and businesses to create incentive systems to 'tune' people's behavior, making society more productive and creative."

Mmm... there's this thing that most societies have, it's called education. It can be highly effective at 'tuning' people's behavior, making society more productive and creative. But something tells me that's the last thing on the USA's rulers' minds...

This'll get you up to speed on what they're doing to education in the US: http://billmoyers.com/episode/public-schools-for-sale/

Public Schools for Sale?

March 28, 2014

Public education is becoming big business as bankers, hedge fund managers and private equity investors are entering what they consider to be an âoeemerging market.â As Rupert Murdoch put it after purchasing an education technology company, âoeWhen it comes to K through 12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the US alone.â

Education historian Diane Ravitch says the privatization of public education has to stop. As assistant secretary of education under President George H.W. Bush, she was an advocate of school choice and charter schools; under George W. Bush, she supported the No Child Left Behind initiative. But after careful investigation, she changed her mind, and has become, according to Salon, âoethe nationâ(TM)s highest profile opponentâ of charter-based education.

On this weekâ(TM)s Moyers & Company, she tells Bill Moyers, âI think whatâ(TM)s at stake is the future of American public education. I believe it is one of the foundation stones of our democracy: So an attack on public education is an attack on democracy.â

Diane Ravitch is Americaâ(TM)s preeminent historian of public education. Her newest book is Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to Americaâ(TM)s Public Schools.

If you look at the latest IPCC report, I don't think you'll see a single instance of "we're all gonna die!" So nice strawman. You can see some of the highlights of the report here: http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/...

...particularly for punishing small fries who get in the way of large corporate interests and other big shots.

Along the same lines, we can ask why 'Bidder 70' went to jail for stopping the illegal sale of public land.

Well I found that median income (adjusted for inflation) is down over the past 15 years;
http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/...

The income range to be considered middle class:$25,500 – $76,500

The median middle class household income in 2012: $51,017
and in 1989: $51,681

Year inflation-adjusted median household income peaked at $56,080: 1999

Income needed in a two parent, two child home in St. Louis for an adequate living standard: $64,673
and in New York City: $94,676

The Problem

Share of self-described middle-class adults who say it’s more difficult now than a decade ago for middle-class people to maintain their standard of living: 85

85% say it's harder. I'd say another large chunk are kidding themselves. 99% might be a slight exaggeration -- but not by much.

Then there is the productivity increase (which means they need fewer workers) coupled with reduced pay -- and we can look at record corporate profits and know that it is not an equitable distribution.

There are some confusions in what you're asking. It isn't Stallman or the FSF's job to supply anyone with a business model. It's the FSF's job to lay out the ethical argument to defend their case that nonfree software is unjust and that we all deserve software freedom. Put differently, and not to equate nonfree software with slavery (slavery is more oppressive than nonfree software), but ethical arguments against slavery don't have an obligation to provide alternative labor sources to exploit. Ethical arguments against slavery have to lay out why people should be treated with human dignity as equals and not as slaves. With that, there are some approaches you should consider:

1. You can learn to be more charismatic, if you think it necessary, but plenty of speakers with important messages (including talking about issues of life and death) are not charismatic (charisma being an eminently subjective quality). Speakers including Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill get large standing-room-only audiences of engaged listeners while delivering their ideas in a perfectly reasonable way because of what they have to say and write. I find this approach to be far more respectful to the audience than that of a charismatic speaker who delivers horrible messages like US President Obama who charismatically tells the world that he'll continue George W. Bush's wars against terror, or deflects serious discussion of what he does every Tuesday when he picks whom to assassinate (sometimes referred to as "Terror Tuesdays"), or when he delivers content-free acceptance speeches like he did in Grant Park spouting vague platitudes about his forthcoming presidency (as Adolph Reed Jr. pointed out on an interview with Bill Moyers, Obama gave "evocative statements" with "no real content"), and more).
2. You can learn to write other software. You can learn to do other jobs besides writing software.
3. All software needs support, regardless of user interface. There are also features businesses will pay for that need to be added to extant free software, such as directory service-related features desired for easier mass deployment within their organization. You can learn to write software that is sold based on its support; other organizations have charged large sums of money based on software they did not initially write; Cygnus which, until it was bought by Red Hat, provided GCC consulting services.
4. Apparently other people find ways to develop and distribute software via Internet download, make money, and do loads of other jobs all while not exploiting people.

Stallman is not going to address your reference to "open source" in the way you expect because he is not a representative of the open source movement, nor has he ever been. Perhaps you would have done well to read the summary /. provided on this story and the links contained therein. One of those links pointed you to a long-published article about how Stallman is not a spokesperson for "open source" and he has pointed out significant differences between his older movement—the free software movement—and the younger open source movement which focuses on development methodology (and is therefore willing to install and recommend nonfree software). That newer essay updates an older essay which has been published in print as well as online.

Also, developing and distributing free software doesn't always mean publishing GNU GPL-covered programs. There are lots of other free software licenses from which to choose depending on the details of the program and one's goals in distributing the program.

and I don't know where he got that usa has higher poverty rate - they don't

Maybe, maybe not. According to some, what I said isn't without merit.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-susan-crawford-fcc-chairman/73mtqt0q ,

Susan Crawford, law school professor and author of Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly in the New Guilded Age, says “Truly high-speed wired Internet access is as basic to innovation, economic growth, social communication, and the country’s competitiveness as electricity was a century ago, but a limited number of Americans have access to it, many can’t afford it, and the country has handed control of it over to Comcast and a few other companies.”

In a recent TV interview, she pointed out high speed access in Hong Kong costs a fraction of what it does in New York city, because the US providers don't enter each other's markets. She wants to change that.

http://billmoyers.com/segment/susan-crawford-on-why-u-s-internet-access-is-slow-costly-and-unfair/