Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "The BEST Line Of MSNBC's Democratic Forum" video.

+Yami0to0hikari Mitt Romney won the votes for those with higher income and a college education. Higher income is generally associated with higher intelligence. Obama won the vote of those with lower income and those with no high school diploma or college education. The original OP is right, the democrats look very white and old. Also their two main candidates are career politicians which is as establishment as it gets, and I am talking about Clinton and Sanders there.
2
+Yami0to0hikari It is true that Obama won the vote of those with a post graduate degree. At the same time how many of those with a PhD currently work in a university who clearly lean liberal. Also at that point someone who has a college degree is just as intelligent than those with a Masters or PhD. It is just that those with a post graduate degree decided to continue studying one particular field where others chose work. And there is a strong correlation between intelligence and income. Football players are the minority and thus a poor example. I agree that democrats do get younger votes, that has always been the trend. I attribute that to lack of experience and knowledge. It is easy to vote off of emotions when you have no experience. People have been saying the republican party is dying but they won the last mid term election and continue to win local elections.
2
+MsTaylormade1979 How does Bernie make sense? He wants a $15/hr min. wage. Using the very bias approach called math businesses will not be able to afford that high of a wage without raising prices, cutting staff or simply closing their doors. But it is all right, we can just collect welfare, all go to college for free getting useless degrees, or working on building infrastructure, tearing it down, and rebuilding it over and over again. That will help.
1
+Henry Walsh "because purchasing increases due to people having more money and that offsets the cost to businesses. That has happened in every single real-world model." Uh no. You need to learn what money is. Paying people more when there is no increase in wealth drives down the value of the dollar. You increase purchasing power by increasing wealth. Anyway in cities you typically have businesses and workers who are more tech oriented. For example the city that has the highest min. wage in the US is also home of Pixar, a place that has workers that make at least $80,000/yr. Now compare that to rural areas in the midwest, or rural states in general that have primarily farmers or workers who don't generate as much wealth thus prices are lower. You see this in WV where it is second to last in median income but number one in home ownership.
1
+Henry Walsh What we do see with increases in the min. wage is higher unemployment in unskilled workers, especially teenagers, and higher prices. This follows general economic theory that is taught every year in every introductory economics course.
1
+Henry Walsh "Much like most minimum wage positions in the US are NOT filled by unskilled workers. There are people working at McDonalds who have Bachelor's Degrees and Doctorates due to market saturation and the financial crash." That is not true. If you can't even get simple facts straight we can't consider moving on with opinions.
1
+Yami0to0hikari "On the other side of the coin, some people may be smart enough to enter college but dont have the opportunity to thus that 4-5% is more or less negligible." Kind of a lame excuse. College is more affordable then you think. Plus, as I said, there is a correlation to intelligence and income. Yes you can find the rare extreme case, but in the end people are well off because they are smart with their money. The older people get the more they care about economic issues which democrats fail at. Also their social issues are overblown. Name me one right that straights have that gays don't. When you look at it the whole gay rights issue is overblown. Now that gay marriage is allowed what do they have to run off of? Marijuana? Not really a strong campaign. I don't don't see the republican party dying. They won the midterms and win a lot at the local level.
1
+CobyFanboy124 And under FDR we had a depression.
1
+LTrotsky 21st Century A much easier point is to show, issue by issue, especially economic issues, that Sanders plan simply won't work at all. Thus any candidate is better than him.
1
+LTrotsky 21st Century Pick any issue then for Bernie Sanders.
1
+LTrotsky 21st Century I am not dodging anything. I can go through almost any Bernie Sanders' policies and break them down to where it won't work. Here, I will pick one myself, the $15/hr min. wage. The problem with that is businesses simply can't afford that high of a wage. The money is not there, especially when you consider rural areas where there are jobs that simply don't produce much wealth in those communities. A $15/hr min. wage will destroy those small towns, never mind businesses. When Bernie talks about the $15/hr min. wage he talks about Walmart. He was having a discussion about it with Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Douglas asked what about other businesses besides Walmart? Bernie was all over Walmart so Douglas decided to get Bernie to talk about other businesses and Bernie just avoided it by going to his typical talking points and sticking on Walmart. It is another example of when people ask Bernie for details he avoids them. He complained about CEOs earning a lot, but cutting CEO pay won't even come close to paying for the $15/hr min. wage. If you were to take the top 6 CEO so Walmart they earn $77 million a year. You take all that money and spread it evenly to the 525,000 workers who earn less than $25,000 a year that will be an extra $148 a year. That is it. That comes from 4th grade level math. Bernie complains about youth unemployment with high youth unemployment comes from the higher min. wage. I can really break it down even farther in how Bernie misunderstands the value of money and what not but at this point it shows that Bernie is completely off on the $15/hr min. wage. Businesses simply can't afford it. You can do the same for all of his economic policies in how they simply won't work. This is why when people ask for his plan, even Bill Maher asked Bernie about his plan, and Bernie could not come up with an answer. Bernie is an old fool.
1
+LTrotsky 21st Century A few things here: 1. The study says "What they found was that it did not have a big negative impact on those cities" There was a negative impact though. That is the point, they admitted to the negative effect but never mentioned any positive effect. You have to realized that in the economy as large as the US is that $10 is small. That is why you can raise the min. wage and not see many negative effects because it all gets lost in the statistical noise. But if you were to raise it to $50/hr then it will have a larger role which is why no politician wants that. When you look at groups effected by the min. wage the most, such as low skilled workers (teenagers for example) and businesses who pay low wages, you see higher prices and less hours. That is why teenage unemployment is going along with the min. wage. 2. You are looking at cities that already have a higher cost of living. The city with the highest min. wage is Emeryville, CA. It is home to Pixar, their largest employer. They have a lot of workers who earn at least $80,000/yr. They have a median income of $45,000 per household. Now compare that to my hometown which is mainly a rural area with a median household income of $29,000. Those cities possess tech jobs that generate more wealth where rural areas don't. Just because is supposedly works in certain cities (which is debatable, San Fran. has extreme high cost of living) doesn't mean it will work elsewhere. I can go on with the high cost of living. San Fran. has a home ownership rate of 36%, far below CA average of 55%, or the US rate of 63%. The cost of living is high there. A $10/hr wage is low compared to other areas of the country. It is like an obese person eating 10 pounds of candy a day and then eating 12 pounds a day a year later and seeing no weight gain. The situation was bleak to begin with. Study more economics there. I will start with you own source you cited, they even admit there were negative results.
1
+LTrotsky 21st Century I doubt you studied economic or you would have realized all that I said and not blindly follow one source as gospel. I can also tell you have not study economics because you use the term "living wage" which 1. not an economic term 2. is subjective and means nothing I showed you how cost of living is different across the entire country. The more micro you get you find out that everyone's living standards is different. I pay $560/month in rent, $40 in energy, $150 in food......up to $1500 a month all together. I can go with less. I an move to a smaller apartment. I can use less energy. I can buy cheaper food. My living wage can be very small. The same goes for others. So what is a "living wage" and how do you determine that? And what do oil companies have to do with the min. wage?
1
+LTrotsky 21st Century No it doesn't. You used the term "living wage". Until you can figure out that term means nothing then we can move on.
1
+LTrotsky 21st Century Yes it does. You want to raise the min. wage which means a small business can no longer function. And that is moral to you?
1
+urduib Those countries also have debt. But more importantly those Scandinavian countries have small populations and completely different societies. You can't compare those countries to the US. That is like comparing some high school football team to the Minnesota Vikings.
1
+Cta2006 It is a lot harder then what you think. With a larger population you are dealing with move diversity and a completely different society. Come to the US, live in a state for a few years, then move to another state for a few years. Even with neighboring states the differences are large.
1
The point of attacking people is to discredit them. Sure we can have a debate on the issue, but who is correct? That is where someone tries to discredit someone. That is just one of many things wrong with Bernie Sanders. People are trying to discredit him and his only rebuttal is that "I hate the media" or "let us discuss issues". I am right away questioning how he will discuss the issues considering how he is avoiding this topic in itself. I can see that when the issues are discussed he has a history of avoiding details of his plans and just spews rhetoric. How can we take him serious at that point?
1