Comments by "" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Secretary Clinton, Please Support our Tax on Carbon | Bernie Sanders" video.

  1. +Shaun Dabare FDR turned a recession into a depression. On your first comment, the top 10% pay 70% of federal income taxes while earning only 40% of the income. And our military budget is not at 50%.
    1
  2. +Science and Truth 2 Rock What is gravity? Where does it come from? With gravity we observed something and develop a theoretical model that matches. That is what we do in science.
    1
  3. +Shaun Dabare The recession was under way, under FDR we saw a depression.
    1
  4. +Shaun Dabare The fact that we had the slowest recovery ever in the history of our country up until now shows who bad he was. Every other recessions, except for two, we recovered from in around 5 years or less. We did so with little to no federal government action. We had a recession in 1921 that was just as bad as the one in 1929 and within a year we recovered because the federal government did nothing. The two that took the longest to recover from was the great depression and the one we are currently recovering from. Both times saw the federal government trying to "fix" the economy. It was the war that led to the recovery. FDR created a mess. There is a reason why the great depression was occurring under his watch.
    1
  5. +Shaun Dabare The federal government did a lot after the crash. Hoover created public work programs and public spending including spending on the Hoover Dam. FDR just added fuel to the fire. Economic crashes happen, it is a part of the evolution of the economy. You talk about regulations, what regulations do you want to prevent crashes?
    1
  6. +Shaun Dabare http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
    1
  7. +Shaun Dabare Paul Krugman is a known Keynesian economist. Of course he will support FDR. The simple fact is this, under FDR we saw the slowest recovery from a recession ever. The recession of 1921, the Panic of 1873, Panic of 1837, the recession of the late 80s and so on never took that long to recover from. It took around 5 years with little to no federal government involvement. Come 1929 and Hoover, then FDR did a lot and the recovery was around 10 years. It was the war that got us out. It always amazing me how people feel that FDR was great for the economy when under him we had a depression. Let me ask you, do you think Matt Millen as a good GM for the Detroit Lions?
    1
  8. +Shaun Dabare I told you, Hoover did a lot. The worst years were during that time because the initial recovery was artificial. That is why FDR turned a recession into a depression.
    1
  9. +Shaun Dabare There wasn't a recovery until the war. The second dip occurred because the initial "recovery" was artificial. He spent money that wasn't there and when he cut the economy crash because no real wealth was created. That is why FDR turned a recession into a depression.
    1
  10. +Shaun Dabare His polices prolonged the recovery creating a depression. Why has there never been another depression? Because in every other recession the federal government stayed out and allowed it to recover until 2007. Here we are 9 years later and still haven't recovered from the recession. "Why do you keep blaming FDR, because it was not his policies that caused the crash. It was Republican lack of regulation." One, what regulation do you want? Next, I blame FDR because his policies hindered the recovery. "If they had been no government interference, imagine the effects. " It would be like in 1921, done within a year. At worse like the Panic of 1873, done within 5 years, so done by 1934 at the latest. "The depression was softened as soon as FDR stepped in. When he cut back, it returned. " No, he created an artificial recovery that came crashing down due to no real wealth being created. "All that it proves is that he economy needs government spending." Spending isn't good, what's good is producing. If spending is good then why not spend $100 trillion a year?
    1
  11. +Shaun Dabare Ah, the Glass-Steagall argument. You do know that the Glass-Steagall repeal had little to nothing to do with the recent recession. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/ Even after Glass-Steagall was passed we still had recessions. If there had been on government programs we would have been fine. In fact FDR supported the AAA which forced cattle and crops to be killed, thus limiting food. "FDR's programs were meant to encourage employment. If he cuts spending, he cuts employment. " Ever heard of the story of Milton Friedman going to China to see a canal being dug up? I suggest you read up on it. We don't want jobs, we want wealth. "Instead of putting money in the military, " Which is actually a very small part of the federal budget, and is the most efficient federal program we have.
    1
  12. +Shaun Dabare I didn't prove your point. I said that it played a role along with many other variables. In short, the recession was still going to happen. What is making it worse is the federal government getting involved and doing the bank bailouts. It is clear you didn't read the article or understand them. Did you watch the Learn Liberty video I linked you about jobs? You don't create jobs out of the sake for creating jobs. You have to create wealth. The AAA literally eliminated food. And you are talking about government action preventing starving? The military is a small portion of the federal budget, around 20%. We use it to promote peace. I know ultra liberals feel our military just goes around blowing things up, but the reality is that we try to settle conflict in a non-violent way.
    1
  13. +petelebu In the 60s black people had to sit at the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains. We were not better of if you are considering where we were when it came to rights.
    1
  14. +Shaun Dabare Again, you didn't read the articles. What happened would have happened even with Glass-Steagall. "As their size was a significant proportion of GDP, if one failed, there had to be a bailout or the economy would fail. " They fail and a competitor takes over. We then recover quickly. " If Banks become to large, then if they fail, they will bring down the economy. " And a competitor takes over. " If you have no jobs, there is no wealth and no growth." We should push for a society with little jobs where a lot of things are automated. Working just to work produces nothing. You need to stop pushing for jobs. "More than the next 7 countries combined." Look at percent of GDP, there are three countries that are higher than us. "And we don't push to promote peace" Yes we do, or our allies will call us out. "We illegally invaded Iraq," No we didn't.
    1
  15. +petelebu Serious question, are you stupid or just playing word games?
    1
  16. +petelebu if you are not going to have an actual rebuttal I am just going to mock you like the fool you are.
    1
  17. +petelebu it was legal. Congress voted on it and approved the invasion. At the time there was thoughts of weapons of mass destruction. While the intelligence made a mistake, at the time it was justification to invade Iraq. The war was legal despite emotion attempts to say otherwise.
    1
  18. +Shaun Dabare Like I said, you didn't read the articles. The Glass-Steagall repeal was, at best, one of many factors involved in the crash.
    1
  19. +Shaun Dabare So you pull out the parts you want to hear and ignore the parts you don't want to hear? Also, with Glass-Steagall we still had recessions, around 6 to 7. The thing is that the federal government did nothing and allowed the economy to recover on it's own. With this recent recession what happened was the federal government got involved and did the bank bailouts which hindered growth. The recession was going to happen with or without Glass-Steagall, the problem was that we allowed the fed. government to try to "fix" it with the bailouts.
    1
  20. +Shaun Dabare You highlighted the quotes that suit your myopic mindset. You are ignoring the rest of the article. "With Glass-Steagall, we did not have any major recession, like the Great Depression or the 2007 Crash" And we haven't had one before Glass-Steagall either.....so what's your point? Here is what government involvement does. Throughout history we have seen multiple recessions like the one in the late 70s, one in 1921, the Panic of 1873 and the Panic of 1837. Every single recession except for two we recovered from in around 5 years or less. The on in 1921 was just as bad as the one in 1929. In of those recessions we recovered quickly from the federal government did little or nothing. The two recessions that took the longest to recover from was the one from 1929 and the current one (which we still haven't recovered from). They are the only two times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy through massive spending, taxation and regulations. If it was the other way around, if the federal government did nothing during 1929 recession and now then you will be all over that. Instead you are pleading and begging for more government. "There should not be government involvement in the first place, but for that to happen, the banks need to be broken up" Which is an oxymoron. That is pleading and begging for more government. They are the root of the problem, not the solution. No bank can pull a whole economy under. With competition smaller competitors will over take them. Yes there will be job lost and a recession, but it will be over quickly, that is the evolution of the economy.
    1
  21. +Shaun Dabare You skipped over the entire conclusion. Even Elizabeth Warren said that you can't point to just Glass-Steagall. People that do are doing so to simplify a complex issue. Even with Glass-Steagall the recession was still going to happen. You cherry picked what you wanted to hear. There were crashes before and during Glass-Stegall. You had on in the late 40s, late 50s, and late 70s. Recessions happen, that is the evolution of the economy. How we recover is key. The pure fact is that the slowest recoveries happened when the federal government tried to "fix" the economy following the recession of 1929 and 20007. You are hopping up and down yelling "deregulation caused the crashes" when you can only name one form of regulation, Glass-Steagall. And I have shown you that 1. Even with Glass-Steagall we still had recessions 2. There is a consensus that the Glass-Steagall repeal was not responsible for the crash of 2007 So unless you can dig up more regulations it is clear that it wasn't deregulation that caused the crashes, it was the evolution of the economy.
    1
  22. +mark pustilincov Typical liberal, wanting to tax and politicize everything.
    1
  23. +Last First Police: Locally ran and funded Roads: locally ran and funded and the ones that are funded and ran federally are constitutional and make up a minute portion of the federal budget Fire fighters: Around 70% of fire fighters are volunteers. Fire departments are locally ran and funded Schools: Guess what? Locally ran an funded.
    1
  24. +Last First Yes, I agree. I support those programs. I don't support the expansion of the fed. though.
    1
  25. +Last First Local programs are ran better and are not politicized as much as compared to federal programs. And pointing to them as an excuse to have government does not fly.
    1
  26. Politicizing climate change, and science in general, is not a great idea. And using that same politics to create new taxes is even worse.
    1
  27. +Science and Truth 2 Rock By not creating barriers in science with politics.
    1
  28. +Science and Truth 2 Rock The issue of climate change is being overblown by politics to create a new tax. This tax will hurt jobs and economic growth, and what will it pay for?
    1
  29. +Science and Truth 2 Rock "Are you a scientist?" Yes. I am currently pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry.
    1
  30. +Science and Truth 2 Rock I know that climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. The questions regarding climate change are 1. is it even bad 2. how much is man playing a role 3. can we even do anything, and if we can should we do anything I support continuing research in the area to progress us on technology overall and to gain more information on it. When politics get involved you get the excuse to create a new tax off of fear mongering and create new regulations which will hurt the economy with no guaranteed results. Our progress on the issue is doing fine, we can't take drastic measures though. Doing so will hurt the economy which now you have at the very least another problem, and possible two. And before you talk about the global consensus, there is a global consensus that drugs should be illegal, does it make it necessarily right?
    1
  31. +SupremeStoops So is that all you have? I don't support Hilary at all.
    1
  32. +Science and Truth 2 Rock What world scientific consensus? Climate change is happening, beyond that are the questions I gave. This past week we had a seminar and the speaker was blunt in that in the US around 70% of our energy is from fossil fuels and that is not changing anytime soon. The reason why is because we can't drastically change our economy off of such large doubt. Let me ask you, what is your solution. We can start there to give a more clearer picture where you stand.
    1
  33. +Science and Truth 2 Rock I have heard of that 97% consensus, it is overused. It it were actually legit we would have more scientists pushing for something to be done. What is the cause? Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. Fusion? One of my best friends does research in fusion. Fusion is not something we can use as an energy source as of now. Trust me, he is getting his PhD in this work. Fusion is the holy grail of energy and if someone has a way to use fusion to power things at the industrial level then that person would be famous. Wind and solar are not efficient. We need to do more research in those areas but they are not efficient. Wind and solar won't power my lab with a $500,000 laser set up, or Los Alamos National Laboratory in NM. That is why we can't go to those sources, doing so will destroy industry including research in other fields. Let us look at solar energy. A major part of solar energy research is in the f elements. China has cornered the market in the f elements because the regulations in mining are so low that they mine the shit out of them. We have lanthanides and actinides in the US in mines, problem is that due to regulations it takes around 10 years to open a new mine. Those regulations stem from people who feel that mines are icky and pollute and thus need to be stopped. The same people who are dramatizing climate change. Those regulations are preventing researching in the US from mining the f elements to do research in them to develop better solar cells through up and down conversion. You see, the issue is not as easy as you think. It gets more complicated when you involve politics. I have friends who do research in fusion and I have friends who do research in the f elements. I took a course in the f elements. Trust me, this is an area I have a lot of knowledge about. I support research in the area of climate change, but I understand the barriers involved. The last thing we need are politics.
    1
  34. +Science and Truth 2 Rock Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory that gives predictions. It is a theory with a lot of supporting evidence and not other theory rivals it as of now so it is used. But in evolution that is a lot of uncertainty in a lot of areas. Take an evolution course. It is typically a grad. level course so it isn't easy, but taking it will open your mind on how complex evolution is. Scientists are humans and are not immune from being persuaded by special interest groups. Yes scientists are trying to bring attention to climate change, but they realize that we can't make drastic changes. As I said earlier, around 70% of our energy comes from fossil fuels and that is not changing anytime soon. " How are you denying that it's man made? " Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. It is a driving force in evolution. Is man playing a role right now? Yes, but how much? And is it even bad? Nature has evolved for millennia during climate change, why would that all of a sudden change?  " Do you have data to back that up, that doesn't come from the carbon or oil industry?" I have 4 billion years worth of data. "I have no idea who your friend is, look up Germaine's new fusion tests." I looked it up, I really don't see anything. There is not a single society that powers their community from fusion. What is going on is similar to what my friends do. It is plasma research. I feel you are not that knowledgeable on the topic. That is not ripping on you but pointing out a flaw in your thinking and will explains why you are saying what you are saying. ", and since when is solar not efficient?" Since always In industry solar and wind are not efficient. You get the largest energy output with fossil fuels. You can run small towns off of wind, like what is happening in Rock Port, MO. You can run homes off of solar. The issue is that you can't store unused energy for very long and the energy you get is low. When it comes to running a lab like Los Alamos you need fossil fuels. When it comes to running major cities you need fossil fuels. We are using solar and wind as is, but we are right now using the the best we can. There are other issues as well. For example with wind you have to move the turbines to there. That has destroyed a lot of roads. You have to rent out the land. These things cost money and effects the economy. I am all for going to alternative forms of energy, but I am not ignorant in doing it. "Who cares if China makes them?" When they corner the market and jack the price up 10 times what they use to be worth then it does matter. Mining regulations has hurt us in research in solar cells. "Why do we need vast quantities of f elements just to do research?" So we can learn more about their properties and develop better solar cells. Do you even know what f elements are? "Politics are needed or nothing will get done" Why? Politics are the barrier between where you are and where you want to be.
    1
  35. +Science and Truth 2 Rock Observing something is supporting evidence, it still doesn't make it a fact. People observed that after it rains worms appeared. They felt that it rained worms. After a lot of studies later that theory was squashed. People felt that light traveled though aether. the Michelson-Morley experiment gave rise to a new theory. Science does prove anything or provide facts, it gives predictions which are theories. Extinction is a part of evolution. A species could not adjust to changes thus it dies off. It happens. "How do you explain the co2s matching the Industrial Age? Look at the data, look at the graphs" You are comparing around 150 years worth of data to 4 billion years. That is minute and not comparable. "Again, by the numbers, solar is at over 40%, while fossil is at 38% efficiency." That over 40% of rare and expensive for solar. It is rare because if the sun don't shine you get nothing. What is 40% of 10? What is 38% of 1,000,000? Which number is bigger? "I have 20 solar panels, the energy they produce is such, the my entire electrical panel had to be upgraded because it would have melted the previous one otherwise." I already said solar works great at the small scale, but not the industrial level. f elements are lanthanides and actinides on the periodic table. We need government, but we need to control government. I never suggested no government.
    1
  36. +Science and Truth 2 Rock It is that simple, clean it up. Accidents happen. As I said, the reward far outweighs the risk. You put a price on everything. Why don't you just push to abolish cars and fossil fuel use in general? And why are you bringing up war? War has nothing to do with this. You have to look for both the quick buck and the long run. I don't have any kids that I know of.
    1
  37. +Science and Truth 2 Rock 150 years of data is minute compared to 4 billion years. It is similar to only polling 150 people out of 4 billion and making a determination based off of that. It can't be done.
    1
  38. +Science and Truth 2 Rock 40% means nothing. What is 40% of 10? What is 38% of 1,000,000? That is the point.
    1
  39. +Science and Truth 2 Rock My point on the f elements is that we have resources to expand our ability to use alternative energy. We don't because regulations hold us back because people feel mines are yucky. These regulations hurt progress like a carbon tax would. I support going to alternative energy. The fact is that fossil fuels are the best we have when it comes to industry and society in general. While going off of it may help in some areas it will hurt in others. For example the expense of my research goes up. My research can aid in finding a way to cure diabetes or cancer. I do a lot of biophysics in my research. Now that work is hindered. So great, we are not using fossil fuels as much, but now medical research is falling behind. It isn't an easy solution, that is my point.
    1
  40. +Science and Truth 2 Rock When you politicize it you make the issue even worse. You have idiots that feel fracking is bad or dramatize climate change to a point where they support a carbon tax or a ban on fracking. That hurts the economy and other areas in our society. People lose their jobs, energy prices go up, research and production is hindered. It is completely asinine how people think.
    1
  41. +Science and Truth 2 Rock And evolution is still a theory. I am not saying it is crap, it is a theory with a lot of supporting evidence and no other rival. I use it all the time. But you can't just jump to conclusions in science.
    1
  42. +Science and Truth 2 Rock But if you raise taxes on fossil fuels then energy prices go up. That is how it is hindered.
    1
  43. +Science and Truth 2 Rock Poor drinking water comes from water plants not cleaning the water properly and poor piping. Plus accidents happen. People die in cars a lot, do we ban driving now?
    1
  44. +Science and Truth 2 Rock Shit happens, clean it up. Basically you are saying that you support killing jobs and raising energy prices because accidents happen? Around 30,000 a killed every year in the US from car accidents. How many people have died from fracking? There are always risks involved, it is just that reward far outweigh the risks.
    1
  45. +Science and Truth 2 Rock You can't predict the progression of alternative energy. The tax increases could exceed the progression of technology leading to higher prices to where people won't be able to afford energy.
    1
  46. +Shaun Dabare "The 1999 changes to Glass-Steagall led to much bigger banks, but that was, at best, just one factor in the 2008 financial crisis." From that it is clear that pointing to Glass-Steagall is a stretch considering the other factors involved. So no, you are not correct. You can claim you are but the reality is you are not. If we didn't do bank bailouts the economy would have recovered quickly. "The Banks should be broken up, " Why? So if something becomes too big you just hold them back? I bet you wanted the smart kids in class to not be so smart as well while you were in school. The AAA literally destroyed food. "The creation of jobs means people have more money to spend," Which means nothing if there isn't anything being produced. You can't consume what you don't produce. That is why when FDR stopped spending the economy crashed again, there was nothing being produced from his spending. "20% of the budget is enormous. " No it isn't considering it is constitutional and we spend a lot more on unconstitutional programs. Also, the military is efficient where other federal programs aren't. "Yet we have no major enemies. " And there is a reason why, we push to promote peace. "We use it to promote peace? We try settling in non-violent ways? Are you kidding?" No. Our only major enemy are terrorists. We work with other nations to settle disputes off of the battlefield. The Iraq War saw less deaths than WWII, despite lasting over twice as long.
    1