Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "The Difference Between Hillary Clinton And Bernie Sanders Supporters" video.

Clinton supporters are realistic, they understand that Bernie can't give any of what he is promising.
3
+Luis Bustamante A $15/hr min. wage will hurt the economy. The min. wage has never gone up that drastically in a short amount of time. Most of Bernie supporters will be worse off with a $15/hr min. wage due to less jobs and higher prices. The $15/hr min. wage is one of many policies that Bernie supports that is incredibly flawed and destructive.
1
+Dor Elkayam Bernie hasn't given any detail plans. Bernie is promising you a pony that flies and shits rainbows. Clinton is promising you an ice cream cone. What are you more likely to get?
1
+Khalkara Nice rebuttal. I can tell from that you are clearly a Bernie supporter.
1
+Khalkara I have seen the site. It is vague with questionable sources. It basically boils down to "there is money there that belongs to someone else, lets take it and waste it". You call me ignorant when Bernie's own site can't even give reliable data.
1
+Khalkara When I go to the website I see questionable numbers and citations. "Paid for by making corporations pay taxes on all of the“profits” they have shifted to the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens," Where is the source that says that is happening? And what are the exact numbers? What does he plan to rebuild? Where are the numbers that show it will cost $1 trillion? His plans are vague and his sources are questionable. The one you give says "estimates". I "estimate" that Bernie is an economic illiterate.
1
+Khalkara The panama papers does not mention any US companies. And businesses have been using tax loopholes, so what? If you tax them more they will either leave, lay off workers or raise prices. We have those loopholes because we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Even at that I still don't see any concrete numbers. Also, a fun fact for you. Before 1913 federal individual income taxes were unconstitutional. Since it has become constitutional the US has seen two major recessions. Before that it has seen none. Simply saying "make them pay their fair share" is not a solution, especially when specific numbers are not given So please describe to me how I am a troll when I demand an actual source and an actual solution.
1
+Patternicity I have seen numbers on the taxes they pay. What I am asking for are the numbers that show 1. how much Bernie wants to spend on infrastructure spending 2. what he wants to build 3. exactly how much money is out there I also want to know how he expects to 1. prevent businesses from firing people after he raises taxes 2. prevent businesses from raising prices 3. how he will stimulate growth in those areas of the market after he takes those resources Simply saying "make them pay their fair share and all would be better" is not a solution. If it was I would be all for it considering how easy it it. The reality is that it isn't that easy.
1
+Patternicity "His small payroll tax raise will fund the healthcare plan which will in turn save people money" How would it save people money? Also you do know that with a payroll taxes businesses can't afford to give out higher wages. "People will have more disposable income which will grow the economy. " What grows the economy is producing, not spending. "He has also said he wants to tax wall st speculation in order to pay for tuition-free college. "" To pay for 2/3 of college. The states will pick up the rest of the tab, and that is if they want to. Also, how is he going to solve the problem of us lacking professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, facilities, staff and so on? "improving the education of the workforce and reducing consumer debt thereby increasing spending and growing the economy?" Again, producing grows the economy, not spending. Also you want a workforce with more skills, not necessarily more education.
1
+Patternicity Demand already exist. People demand better goods and services at a lower price. Competition creates the incentive for businesses to develop better goods at a lower price. Do you think that cell phone companies keep making new smart phones do so because people have more money? No. They do so because competitors are doing so thus to keep up and attract customers they keep developing better products. The pure fact is that you can't consume what you don't produce. People having more money means nothing because productivity is always at a max. People can only work so hard and technology can only produce so much. What increases productivity is investment by investors to get the most out of resources. Investors do that to beat out the competition. If the money is not there by the consumers then prices will drop. This is really basic stuff. Sorry, you're just a lost cause.
1
+Patternicity When their income goes up because they are more productive. If all it took was more spending then why not mail out checks for $20,000 to people? More money more spending, right?
1
+porculizador How is someone voting against their own interest? Bernie will make it harder for the poor if his policies are passed.
1
+w9j15g Well one the $15/hr min. wage will make it harder for the disadvantaged (the poor) in getting a job.
1
+porculizador How? Bernie wants to expand the powers of the federal government expanding corruption which causes things like the bank bail outs. While Bernie himself may be against the bailout and wants to help people, what about the other 500+ politicians in DC and future presidents? On top of that his policies will hurt the poor such as "free college" will make college education worse off for the poor, and the $15/hr min. wage will make it harder for those who are at a disadvantage (the poor and unskilled) in getting a job.
1
+w9j15g "The minimum wage won't be raised to $15 all at once, but over a period of years" It doesn't matter, any increase will lead to poor results. "That will mean that the government is no longer subsidizing companies like Walmart whose full-time employees are so underpaid that they still need public assistance to survive" That is not Walmart's fault that their employees refuse to find a way to earn more money or spend their money better. Walmart pays the market rate. They don't pay more because they can't afford it. Also Walmart has pushed for a higher min. wage in the past because knowing it would hurt smaller competitors. " The bank bailouts occurred because there was too little government regulation." Like what? Name one. "That led to systemic fraud that caused the housing bubble" Or programs like the FHA which caused the housing bubble. "Keeping the poor from getting a college education because of high costs, or burying them in student debt, does not help them improve their lives." We lack professors, dorms, classrooms, tutors, staff and so on in colleges. Increasing enrollment will either increase the cost of college or lower the quality to where only the rich will get the best education. So while the poor will get an education it would be essentially worthless. Also college is not as expensive as you think it is. You can get a college degree for less than the price of a house. You can get a college education for less than the price of a car if you go to a JC or CC.
1
+porculizador "bernie's policies cannot create a new bank bailout because he's gonna break up the banks " How? Plus why do you want the federal government to set arbitrary standards to determine if an entity is too large? That is placing a cap on success which hinders growth. In a free market if a big bank is doing well then the economy grows. If that bank fails then the economy will suffer a little but smaller competitors will take over. What Bernie is doing is overreach by the federal government. Also, a fun fact, the Glass-Steagall repeal did not cause the recession. "or in the future" So is Bernie going to be invincible? What will stop other politicians from doing it? " bernie is gonna push for campaign financial reform" How? And again, what is going to stop future politicians from doing it? "as proof look at his campaign contributions. he's the only candidate not taking any money from corporate donors" Great, so what about everyone else? You know how you solve that problem? By placing strict limitations on the federal government. If it have no power than it can't be bought and corrupted. "you want to keep wages low and education unattainable" No, I want the purchasing power of the dollar to be high and people to have opportunity to develop skills. You can't just snap your fingers and say "wages are now high and everyone can have an education". If it were that simple then I would be rallying for Bernie all the way, but it isn't.
1
+w9j15g Walmart pays above the min. wage already. And they have pushed for a higher min. wage in the past knowing it would hurt smaller competitors. Walmart pays the market rate for retail workers. I find it funny that you rip on Walmart but not Target, Hy Vee, Safeway, Raley's and so on for their comparable wages (and they also hire less people). You are wanting to make a policy that effects everyone just because you hate one company. That is now how we should be approaching economic policies. "The data show that raising the minimum wage has only a minor, short-term, adverse effect on employment when it is done reasonably." Not really. It has a long term effect on those at a disadvantage such as teenagers from communities that suffer through poverty. Instead of getting a job, developing skills and connections and getting out of poverty, they get stuck. Before the min. wage black and white teenage unemployment was comparable. Since then black teenage unemployment has gone up drastically. There is a reason why the black community continues to suffer and be in poverty. There are other factors as well but the inability to get a job at a young age plays a role. "By putting more money in the hands of low-wage earners, it actually boosts economic growth leading to increases in employment down the line." Again, false. If it were that easy then why not a $100/hr? Or why not just mail people checks for $20,000? What boosts an economy is producing, not spending. "The FHA did NOT cause the housing bubble. You are parroting misinformation from the Republican Party." Actually I never heard of the republican party mentioning the FHA. My own intelligence has me realizing the FHA caused a housing bubble just like the student loan program is going to cause a student loan bubble. "Why should a degree be as expensive as a house?" Because for the four years of work you do you can get a lot of value back from that, such as buying a house. "Why should a degree PREVENT you from buying a house? " It doesn't. "The average student graduated in 2015 with $35,000 in student loan debt." I agree, that is a slight problem. The federal government artificially increased demand with their student loan program and supply did not keep up with demand causing an increase in prices. That is basic econ. 101. The federal government again caused a problem here. It increased spending without increasing production and prices went up......hmmmm......this sounds familiar. "The economy is helped much more when people have disposable income" I agree. With increased production goods and services get better and there are more of them which drives prices down. "Do you know who benefits from student loan debt? The banks! And you have been fooled into supporting their policies!" I really don't support the federal student loan program.
1
+w9j15g Monopolies occur because of the government. It wasn't the free market that bailed out the big banks, that was the government. That's corporatism, not capitalism. Breaking up the big banks gives the federal government the power to determines winners and losers in the market.....like bail outs. So you want to give that government more power so it can do the same corrupt things later? Fun fact: The Glass-Steagall repeal did not cause the recession. The FHA contributed to the problems you are talking about.
1
+porculizador Ok, what formula? That is completely new to me. "from 1790s to 1930s banks and financial institutions went thru 15 year boom-and-bust cycles that hurt our economy" That is not true. It had recessions but that is simply due to the growth of the economy. After Glass-Steagall we still had recessions. Recessions happen, it is how we recover is key. Those boom and bust cycles you are talking about had fast recovery due to the federal government doing nothing to true to "fix" the situation. In the 30s the federal government tried to "fix" the economy and we saw the slowest recovery of all time. After that during following recessions the federal government did nothing to try to "fix" the recessions and we were fine until 2007 when guess what? The fed. felt it was necessary to "fix" the situation again and it hindered the recovery. Glass-Steagall was pretty much pointless after the 50s. . Pointing to it as the reasons for what has occurred is displaying a high level of ignorance. " let me tell you that a mcdonald's cashier or cook in denmark makes $20 per hour and they pay less for big macs over there." You just literally took a situation involving a complex economy and reduced it down to the big mac and the min. wage. It isn't that easy. "that makes their people the happiest people on earth" What do you mean "happiest"? "if other countries can do it, why can't we? " They are countries with different societies and less diversity. Denmark also has mandatory military, do you want that as well? "there are no libertarian governments in existence anywhere in the world for a reason: it doesn't work" That depends. But anyway, the US is a country of 320+ million people. The issue is more complicated then what you are making it out to be.
1
+w9j15g The 19th century recessions lasted around 5 years, that's it. That is mainly due to the fact that the US was still developing as a country. But they were nowhere near as bad as the great depression or the great recession. In the latter period we still had recessions but 1. we were more developed 2. every other country was rebuilding after the war thus we had a head start and a competitive edge I will give you info on Glass-Steagall in another comment.
1
+w9j15g I think you are completely wrong in what you think I am. I am not a libertarian, I am a moderate. You paint me as one because I oppose federal government action thus you think I am anti-government. In other comments I have said that too much government is just as bad as no government. I oppose Bernie Sanders and policies such as Glass-Steagall because it creates too much government. There is a desire to have government granted you make sure that government remains the servants and not the masters. There is a desire to have money spent by government granted that you get your money's worth. You do that with keeping government as local as possible. With smaller, more local government you have more control of government to where it actually works for the people the way the people want. While studying the constitution it is clear to me that was the exact line of thinking of the founding fathers. The constitution laid out the role of the federal government, the limitations of all governments, and gave more power to the states. The primary role of the fed. was deal with foreign affairs and make sure that citizens have rights. Those rights in no way gave the potential of the federal government the ability to have power the people. It gave power to the people to control government. You want to expand the federal government feeling it can be beneficial in that it can prevent X, Y and Z and offer A, B and C. You feel it can prevent recessions with regulations. It may can. But what it can also do it work with special interest groups that hurts others to benefit the few, such as the bail outs. You may not like the bail outs but that is the power you gave that government. I am the one that want to take it away. You want that government to have more power and then you get confused when they abuse it for their benefits like the government is moral and just. Let me give some reason why I feel that way. Growing up in a small town there was no need to have much of a government. There were streets without stop signs. Most fire fighters were volunteer (around 70% are in the US). Healthcare was not an issue. One doctor was a sports fanatic and donated money to create clinic to give care to anyone with a sports related injury. There were times the local hospital simply picked up the rest of the tab if insurance did not cover it all. This is typical of rural areas. That is why they typically vote republican and support small government. Now I live in a city. There is now way that we can go without stop signs. I like having government oversight to ensure that mechanic who works on my car is held accountable ( I knew 4 in my hometown). Same with doctors, stores and other businesses. In a city it is less personal thus there is a need for more government. That isn't bad. What is bad is when people from the city translate it to the federal level and want to force their will on everyone. That is not the right approach. You fall in the latter category. You feel the government needs to enforce regulations and thus want to enforce them at the federal level. You are creating problems, not helping them. History has shown this never works. And when I come up and suggest you are wrong in that we should not be giving the fed more power you claim I am some anti-government fool. That right there shows you how myopic you are. But considering how you feel that the Glass-Steagall repeal caused the housing bubble (even though facts say otherwise) it doesn't surprise me. I suggest you do more research on the issue before you jump to conclusion. It is clear that you lack knowledge on the topic and don't possess an open mind on the issue. You are a person wanting another Glass-Steagall but then will complain when the bailouts happen. That is like wanting a drunk driver to drive you home but complaining when they wreck your car.
1
+w9j15g Did you even read them? "The 1999 changes to Glass-Steagall led to much bigger banks, but that was, at best, just one factor in the 2008 financial crisis." Your claim is that it was the main factor. The first link said that at best it was one of many factors. The second one says pretty much the same thing. I find it ironic you criticize my third one for being an opinion piece while you cite Salon. I suggest you read those sources closer. There are several factors involved in the complex economy. Glass-Steagall was pretty much dead when Clinton signed it away. Recessions happen, blaming the one in 2007 on some law that has been pretty much dead since the 50s is a huge reach.
1
+porculizador I see you deleted all of your comments or have done something to where I can't see them. Do you not want to have an open discussion?
1
+w9j15g Ok, thanks
1
+porculizador I read your comment. 1. Even under Glass-Steagall we still had boom and bust cycles. We had at least 3 I can think off. The issue is that the federal government did little to nothing to try to "fix' the economy and recovery was quick. Just like what happened in 1921. It is clear that the Glass-Steagall repeal did not cause the recession. 2. What is happiness? That is a subjective idea. You also have to consider that Denmark is a country of 5 million people with a completely different society compared to the US and far less diversity. You can't compare. Doing so is displaying a high level of ignorance. Great, so Denmark, a country that contributes little to the world, has mandatory military, basically no diversity, and has around 5 million people is happy. Who cares? 3. Where in all of my comments have I said I was a libertarian? Read one of my earlier comments and I said I am a moderate that supports following the constitution and establishing state rights. I understand that too much government is just as bad as no government. Just because I want to limit the fed doesn't mean I am a libertarian. It means I want smaller, more local government that the people can control more and see if it actually works for them. You have such a radical idea of wanting to expand the powers of the federal government but I bet you would be the first to complain when they abuse that power. What is even more crazy is that you feel it is "simple" which displays even more ignorance. But nowhere have I shown that I oppose abolishing government. If you really want to succeed in life and learn more you can't be so radical.
1
+porculizador I see less of them now.
1
+porculizador We have had boom and bust cycles under Glass Steagall. We had a bust under Carter, under Reagan we improved. "i have the most credible source for this," but have yet to provide it. Look at GDP growth throughout the year. You see recessions. You never hear of them because we recovered quickly due to little to no federal government action, just like what happened in 1921. The happiness index is subjective. Also it still doesn't change the fact that you are comparing the US to Denmark, two countries with vastly different societies. Really, what is happiness? Settling for mediocrity is happiness? Being forced to join the military is happiness? If you did that in the US then people would be very pissed off. Saying "they are happier in Denmark" is not an argument. They have 5 million people, little diversity, and accomplish almost nothing compare to the US. How many times have they landed on the moon? How many major companies do they have? "is a tenet for the first stages of libertarianism, which is a conservative movement btw. are you for a small military? " It is not a tenet for libertarianism, but if you want to think that then fine. I see what you are trying to do with the military question. You do know that when compared in percent of GDP we are number 4 in the world in military spending. We are a military that is comparable in size to other countries, and people on their own free will sign up for it. The military we have now is fine. " and small police force?" Whatever that local government wants. Police are ran and funded locally. "and small firemen force?" Considering how around 70% of firefighters are volunteered it is safe to say it is pretty small. But again, it all depends on what that local government wants. "and small infrastructure?" What is infrastructure? Really, I hear this a lot. Maybe if we built something correctly the first time it wouldn't be falling apart. But again, it comes down to what the state and local governments want. You are trying to say "you want small this and small that". I can't define what "small" is. How ever much of those programs you want is up to the state and local government (with the exception of the military since that is ran by the fed and is constitutional in doing so). If a state wants a large police force and their citizens vote on it then why not? That is their choice. If they don't want it then they can rally to vote against it or move to another state and remain a US citizen. You see the balance of that? "let's also get rid of unemployment and disability and social security and medicare." Considering they are programs that are inefficient an running out of money, plus are unconstitutional and has created more problems, why not? Here is the problem, you want your idea of government to be instituted at the federal level. I am not saying your idea of government is 100% wrong, it is just that not everyone wants it. People wanted healthcare reform in 2008 but we could not get 60 senate democrats go agree on one bill. The reason why is because while people wanted healthcare reform they all wanted something different. This is the exact same problem the founding fathers ran into thus they created state rights. You want your government to be established at the fed. But when a group of republicans come in push to establish theirs then you complain. You action causes that to happen. Mine is saying you can push to establish your idea of what government should do at the state and local level. If you like it then great, if not then rally to change it or move to another state that fits your ideas. I live in a state that is right to work, has no income tax, is right leaning. I moved here. I will not live in CA that is very liberal. I will also not push to change what CA is doing because that is what those citizens want, but you will. You can call me a libertarian all you want but at least I am not a fascist like you.
1
+porculizador Fact is that fascism has not worked throughout history, so why do you push for it?
1
+w9j15g Ok, what does Trump have to do with any of this? Do you think I am a Trump supporter? Also, how is he a fascist? Please explain in detail. Also fascism is not a "far-right ideology".
1
+porculizador You want to enforce what you think is right on others through the government. I am saying that you can have the type of government you want at the state and local level if the rest of the community wants it. You can move to a state that is ran how you feel is best. I can live in my state accordingly. As I said, I don't like how CA is ran, but I don't live there and I also don't vote there. I would like others to do the same when it comes to my state. Your approach is fascist, my approach caters to our diversity and gives people flexibility and freedoms.
1
+w9j15g I am making perfect sense. I get called a libertarian. I want you to know my stance on the issues. So yes, I am discussing things that have been brought up.
1
+porculizador Fascism? Harsh control or authority. You want the fed. to have a lot of power to where it is your way and your way only. I want to limit the federal government as listed in the constitution. No where in the constitution does it say that the fed. can create laws such as Glass-Steagall. You don't want the fed. to have that kind of power which is the power in how successful anything can be. You want to expand the powers and the size of the federal government in which the people have almost no control over. If anyone anywhere does not agree with you then you feel the fed. should take them down or make us dependent on the fed. That as opposed to just allowing people to live the lives they want to live.
1
+porculizador Glass-Steagall is unconstitutional in that it doesn't abide to the principles of the constitution. The federal government was not supposed to have that kind of overreach. "i just want the rights of the people to always prevail, and we need policies and regulations to ensure that that is the case" You need to learn what rights are. Glass-Stegall does not ensure any rights are protected. "fascism is a type of government that is totalitarian" I agree, like one that the people can't control and at the same time dictates how the economy functions. "fascism is right-wing" No it isn't. "an example of a totalitarian right (fascist) is the nazis who had emphasis on economic factors like economic expansion, imperialism, etc., and had negative emphasis on sociocultural factors like hierarchical society, open racism, xenophobia, etc" That sounds like a lot of the regressive liberals today. Denmark is a country of 5 million people, smaller than a lot of states. Every state has K-12 education paid for and offered to the citizens. There are some local governments that offer healthcare. If Denmark had 320+ million people then they will be doing something completely different.
1
+w9j15g You are not understanding the commerce clause. The commerce clause did not give the federal government regulatory power. You want to know how I know? Because all individual federal taxes were unconstitutional as well? If the constitution gave the federal government regulatory power then it would also give it expanded power to tax and would not have demanded a new constitutional amendment in order to do so. The commerce clause says "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" Among states, not businesses. What that means is that if two states did not get along then the federal government can step in. For example if a state has low environmental regulations that is up to them. But if they are dumping waste in the river, or allowing a company to do that and it effects a neighboring state in a way they don't like, then the fed can make them stop. Nowhere in the constitution does it say it gives the federal government the ability to regulate businesses. "You need to read the constitution before you claim to know what it says" Actually one of my jobs requires me to fully understand the constitution. I got a 93% on my test. What I missed was pure memorization as in what amendment applied to what. But I understood the application of the constitution.
1
+w9j15g There have been things that were ruled unconstitutional in the past and changed later, like the min. wage for example. There have been unconstitutional ruling in the past. Look up Kelo vs City of New London. "The size of a country doesn't determine whether or not certain policies will work. " Yes it does. Increasing the size means more diversity. " Germany has 81 million people and offers free college." Germany tracks their students and if the government feels that you are not college material they don't allow you to go. Plus you also have different societies here. For example not other country has a program like the NCAA attached to their colleges. That alone makes "free college" not possible along with rulings such as Title 9.
1
+porculizador I agree we need to protect rights. All those countries you mentioned are all different and have different societies. I just mentioned to the other person that the US has the NCAA attached to their colleges where no other country does. That is a huge difference in how our colleges are different. You can't just look at other countries and say "see, they do it so can we". You are taking complex issues and over simplifying them. "fascism is right wing by necessity." No it isn't. I am 29 and working on my PhD, it is safe to say I am pretty education and intelligence. " honestly, does "hierarchical society, open racism, xenophobia" sound liberal to you? " No, that is why I said "regressive liberals". Look that up. Look up the youtube video "5 signs you are a regressive liberal". I differentiate between liberals and regressive liberals. I respect liberals and support a lot of their polices. I don't support regressive liberals. "no offense, but if it does then what the hell am i doing talking to you? go to school get some foundation, and then we'll talk" Says the person who clearly did not read my comment and did not see that I was talking about "regressive liberals".
1
+porculizador With a college degree you have the ability to obtain a high paying job to by a house later quickly, that is if you actually do college correctly and not get a worthless degree. Also taxing Wall Street means you are taxing people's savings for retirement and college funding. It isn't as simple as tax Wall Street. If it was then we would be doing it for other programs, such as war if I were to think like an ultra liberal. China had a one child policy for a while. Also the US has a far better university system than China. The Salon article basically said that wanting to enforce immigration laws is being a racist. I can't take that seriously.
1
+w9j15g I wasn't the one that brought up the N word. You are alluding to that diversity is 100% race related, it isn't. It is related to culture. " There are no reasons why universal healthcare or free college would work in Utah but not in Nevada." If those states want to run it then fine, that is up to those states. And there are arguments for why it won't work in certain states. In Clark County Nevada you can make $80,000 a year parking cars. That is why Nevada is ranked so low in education, people don't value it simply due to the culture related to entertainment stemming mainly from Vegas. On healthcare? Utah has strict drinking laws. Because of they are near the bottom in drunk driving accidents which would play a role in healthcare. Less accidents less people going to the hospital for care. You really need to start seeing how different states are across the country. You seem to be living in a bubble. I read what you wrote about taxes, I told you want the constitution says. Is was quite clear that Congress could tax states but not individual citizens. You need to read the commerce clause again. It was commerce between states. And my interpretation of the constitution is correct. I have to take a test on it yearly and I constantly score over a 90% on it. The test and study materials are written by constitutional scholars.
1
+w9j15g Nope, just the states. They were basing the taxes off of the census. That is not tied to banks. Taking the test yearly is like a sports official taking the rules test yearly. In some tests they emphasize different areas. It make sure you keep up on the constitution and not just take the test and forget it. I do it yearly and have it down to the point I don't have to study it much, but I still do.
1
+w9j15g I work for the local government. The overall point is the the federal government was to have limited powers. It was not supposed to tax individuals nor effect businesses. That was the state's position. There were export taxes but not taxes on businesses. I do understand the commerce clause and how it has been misused in history.
1
+w9j15g A lot of unconstitutional rulings and been challenged and not overturned. Look up Kelo vs City of New London for a great example. Also consider that such regulations similar to Glass-Steagall were ruled unconstitutional in the past. FDR threaten to stack the courts in his favor to get laws to pass. There was a corruption there.
1
+w9j15g There are too many creepers on the internet. I am not going to get into too much details in what I do. You don't have to believe me but it doesn't change the fact. You refuse to read the comment because you are myopic, racist and ignorant. Enjoy staying in your safe zone.
1
+w9j15g I have an active live and enjoy it.
1
+porculizador Who says I am going to vote for Trump?
1
+Enrique Godinez "Bernie is a once in a lifetime candidate" If that is the case then why do his supporters push to have the federal government run our healthcare, college and have more of our money when every other politician will remain corrupt?
1
+Green Mtn You can't repeal citizens united. People have the right to contribute money to whoever they want. Money in politics is just a symptom of a disease. That disease is a federal government with too much power. You don't attack the symptom, you attack the disease. The US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world. And saying "gov run healthcare has a 2% overhead" has no data attached to it. Healthcare is expensive but that is mainly due to policies implemented by the federal government. "Not to mention Bernie is the longest serving independent in US hitory" What means what?
1
+Green Mtn "citizens united isnt about people giving money to politicians." In a nutshell it is. "If you base "the best healthcare system" on outcomes we are far from best but by far the most expensive" Read the book "The Business of Health" by Robert Oshfeldt and John Schneider I breaks down how the US system is better in a lot of ways than other countries. At the very least we are not "far from the best" nor "the most expensive". Both of those claims no one can make just like no on can say that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. The differences are minute thus one can argue that the US has the best but can't make a definitive conclusion either way.
1