General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
The Young Turks
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "John McCain's Insane New Military Budget" video.

They are finding out how hard it is to immigrate to Canada. For starters, you have to have a job.
5
The defense budget is constitutional. Also, increase in the budget does not really increase demand in anything. "Free" college and healthcare increases demand in those areas which increases demand and thus prices.
4
Nope, I am trying to educate you. I do agree that republicans should have approached Bernie in a somewhat different way, but in reality Bernie is such as buffoon he would have never listened.
3
"Bernie's education plan costs 10 times less than this new military budget" No it doesn't.
2
"I have people who work where I work with full degrees," In what?
2
Most education spending is at the state and local level.
1
Conor, I you are right. Bernie is not a buffoon, he is a sociopath. Remember, he is a socialist with three homes. But yet somehow he represents the common man.
1
Connor, he does own three homes. http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/10/bernie-sanders-buys-summer-home/
1
Patrick, it isn't "scalable". More people means more diversity and different societies. It makes it more challenging to micromanage things. Also, those other countries do things that I imagine you don't want to do. In some countries they have mandatory military. Do you want that? You can't just take what you want and ignore other things they do.
1
Fredrik, Bernie ran a campaign on income and wealth inequality and how it is a problem. Meanwhile he contributes to that problem and buys a third home. He says that it bothers him that many have so little, and so few have so much (like him owning three homes). He is a hypocrite. Over 30% of the nation does not own the living quarters they reside in. Meanwhile he owns three homes. I wouldn't mind if he didn't run an entire campaign on wealth inequality. This is the same guy who attacks the Walton family for being wealthy. He just attack Betsy DeVos for being wealthy.
1
Really, Bernie is a sociopath.
1
Sidney, Trump did not run a campaign where he attacked rich people for having too much. Bernie did. Bernie needs to lead by example. I don't mind if he owns a home, but three is going against what he ran on. Apparently it is OK for him to have a lot, but not others. Listen to his campaign. A big part of it was how so few had so much and so many had so little. It was designed to give the impression that the rich are hoarding all this wealth and income and leaving other people to suffer, so in that case we must ask them to pay their "fair share" as Bernie puts it. Meanwhile he owns three homes. This is exactly like when Al Gore made his movie but meanwhile his home in TN was not environmental friendly at all when someone like George Bush's house in TX was. Bernie is saying that other people can't be rich, but he can. He is a hypocrite.
1
Bart, if Bernie owned only one house I won't have a problem. If he owned many homes and used them as rentals I won't have a problem. If he owned many homes and designed them and provided them as low income housing for the needy I will be impressed. He doesn't do that though. Instead he owns three homes and says that other rich people have too much thus we need to take it from them.
1
Bart, my attacks on Bernie are legit. If he owned one home I won't be bothered by it. If he actually did things to help out the poor I will be impressed. But the reality is that he ran a campaign on the idea that we have rich people with too much and we need to use force to take their wealth from them to give to others. Meanwhile he owns three homes. What does he do to help out the community? Be honest. Give me specific examples of what he physically does to help out the community?
1
Sidney, Trump did not attack the poor, the brown the disable, or women. With Muslims, right now there is a problem of radical terrorism existing in their group that some Muslims themselves want to change. Until it gets fixed it needs to be called out. Does either Trump or Bernie stand up for me? In reality no. But that leads to a different discussion all together. This isn't about Trump, it is about how Bernie is a hypocrite.
1
Except it will cost more than $75 billion, unless you drastically lower the quality.
1
Well one, since when has the federal government ever been correct on their projected cost? Next, It is about supply and demand. We lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, equipment and so on. You will be increasing demand without increasing supply which means one of two things needs to happen, either the cost will go up or the quality will drop. The reason why tuition is so high to begin with is because the federal government gave away loans to almost everyone which increased demand thus universities raised prices.
1
"We do not have to take anything away from the wealthy. We just have to stop giving them freebies. " What freebies do they get? If they get any I would agree, it needs to stop at the federal level just all all "freebies" need to stop. "Some thriving companies do not pay taxes at all." Why should they pay federal taxes to begin with? I support what we had before 1913 which was only a tax on the states. No federal income taxes or corporate taxes. " Also, keep in mind how people become billionaires in the USA. Some are Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. But the others are simply people who inherited 500 million and then used it to buy stock. Poor people cannot afford stocks, so they do not benefit at all from a booming economy. How does that help society? Why would society allow that?" How does that help society? Take Walmart for example. They are as big as they are because of shareholders. Thus they have multiple stores for convenient locations and hours with low prices. Am I saying it is all great? No. But they do help society a lot.
1
" So what if someone owns more than 1 house" I don't care as long as they are not a hypocrite. Compare it to this. Say if someone was against the second amendment but owned 6 guns. Or say someone was against gay marriage but was gay themselves? It is hypocrisy. "Why is grade school free? Why is middle school free? Why is high school free? " Because the states (not the federal government) decided to set up that system and fund it. If a state wants to do "free college" than I will be OK with it. I won't agree with it but I will be OK with it in the system I support. You have to understand the states fund and run K-12 education. "100 years ago, someone could get by with a 6th grade education. Times have changed." Yes, and people need to adjust. Just like how the VHS is gone, people needed to learn how to use a DVD player. Or how people needed to learn how to be safe on the internet and not give out their bank info to just anyone. "Since the number of colleges would remain the same, the number of applicants would increase, " Which increases prices or lower quality. "Isn't a meritocracy like your wet dream?" Nope.
1
"You do not believe in taxes." Never said I did. I support taxes on the states at the federal level and states designing their own tax system whether it be consumption taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes or whatever. I never said anything that suggested that I don't believe in taxes.
1
"holy shit can you imagine how many jobs that would create? nationwide?" Do you know the unemployment rate for those with a Masters degree or higher? The fact is that those workers do not exist. It isn't that the job positions don't exist. It is that those people don't exist. That is the issue.
1
"Supply and demand, ay? Can you tell me how that works with a single payer system? In socialized medical systems, does the cost of prescription drugs go up? Does the quality of the drugs suffer?" I socialized medicine the quality goes down in other countries because they are the ones setting the prices. If you want to look at what will happen with college education if the government ran it and funded it look at our public schools. We have public schools that are falling apart. We lack teachers, substitutes, and facilities. We have public schools that are falling apart and that is just at the K-12 level which the states run. Do you want that with colleges? College campuses are beautiful for the most part. They are ran well for a reason. All you are supporting is bring these things down. "... companies which have become so large they can bury any competition... so out the door with the free market argument" That is mainly the result of the federal government. Who bailed out the banks again after the recession? That wasn't the free market.
1
Kevin, I am pursuing my doctorate now. I have two degrees as it and enough work to justify a Masters. So how do I have college degrees?
1
Bart, all over the nation, especially in inner cities. Read the book The Shame of the Nation by Jonathan Kozol. He gives examples of schools in NYC that are falling apart. I see it in my city where things are a mess. We have an inner city school that have windows that are stuck open during the winter.
1
" So educate professors and whatever is needed." It is not that easy. Obtaining a graduate degree is challenging. I am pursuing my doctorate right now and it is not easy to do. Very stressful and a lot of work. There is a reason why only around 2% of the nation has a doctorate degree despite how much someone with such a degree earns and the fact that unemployment is less than 2% for those individuals. Also, it brings up another point with Bernie. Why work that hard to earn a doctorate or a masters when you can work any job full time and be guaranteed, according to Bernie, the following 1. Living wage 2. healthcare 3. retirement 4. sick days 5. vacation 6. paternity leave 7. retirement And so on. Why should I continue my doctorate when I can work at Del Taco full time and have all those things? Where is the incentive to work?
1
"If there were any justice in the world, every employer would get to see this" They can't for one simple reason, they can't afford it.
1
Bernie owns three homes. Two in Vermont and one in DC.
1
"No turd, people will alwalys try to make more money." Ok, than why do only around 5% of the workforce work multiple jobs? And why do only around 10% of the population have a Masters degree to begin with?
1
" It saddens me deeply that you have to spend your life's time trying to get a doctorate, when you have no passion for it," I have a deep passion for it. I enjoy learning and pursuing new goals. At the same time it is stressful so I do want to benefit from it financially. But if I can live just fine with a job at Del Taco then I can work there and learn new things on my free time. I can take night courses at the "free college" and get degrees on the side. I have a passion for learning, I just want to benefit from it financially cause I know how expensive life can get at times. "If you can be content working full time at Del Taco, you are making a valuable contribution to society and should be rewarded as such." So working at Del Taco is valuable to society?
1
Sidney, the democrats bailed out the banks. And who is pushing for privatization of schools? "1% of Americans are holding 40% of it's total wealth..." And a home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. When you understand what wealth is you realize that the wealth inequality is natural. "Trillions of dollars sitting in foreign tax havens" Because of our high taxes. "The super rich are ruining the country's prosperity for the rest of us" Nope, more like the federal government with all of its power. "Just opportunity" You have that, it requires work. " and bribery is legal in Washington, " Because it has the power to sell. So do you want that same government running your healthcare and college education? Why do you feel that will end corruption? "Furthermore, I find it incredible you think sanders is a hypocrite while supporting the guy claiming to be "for the working class" who's never worked a day in his life..." He has worked a lot more than Bernie. Also, I didn't vote for Trump, I voted for Gary Johnson. But, again, why do you want this corrupt federal government to control your healthcare, college education, and more of your money with higher taxes?
1
" I think Trump helped us all understand even more that the 1 % are controlling the federal government. So dont argue government control is evil when its used as a puppet by the super rich." If the federal government had no power than it can't be bought. This is why the founding fathers designed this country to have strict limitations on the federal government with more state rights. The more local government is the more control you have over it. If the federal government had limited powers than it can't be bought. This is one thing I ask of Bernie supporters. Why do you want this same corrupt government bought out by the 1% to run your healthcare and college education? The other day in a conversation with a co-worker I said I thought Bernie was a sociopath. She said Trump was one and I said I agree to a point. He has a lot of the qualities. This is why the founding fathers wanted limitations on the federal government, to prevent a sociopath from becoming president or gaining a seat in congress and oppressing the citizens.
1
"You still have to pay the people a living wage. If you can't, close your business." If you can't justify earning a higher wage then you have to lose your job. That is exactly how the business, and ultimately society will act.
1
Damacles9, all a corporation can do is offer you a product and/or a job. The government can force you to do things you don't want. With that said, yes you can vote for them, but at the federal level how many members of Congress can you vote for? Now compared that to the state and local level. You say "we can vote for government" when in reality, at the federal level, you can only vote for a select few of the representatives. You have no say who comes from other states. " why did the Founding Fathers even bother with a Federal Government" Because it was to keep the states (not the people) united. It was to give citizens rights to control governments and handle foreign affairs. If you look at the design of the Constitution it placed strict limitations on the federal government and gave powers to the states. Look at taxes. The only federal taxes at the time were taxes on imports and exports, and a tax on the states, not individuals. The federal government had very limited powers over individual citizens beyond treason and selective service. What it was is that the citizens controlled the states and local government, and the states controlled the federal government. The federal government was made up of the states, the states and local government were made up of the people. It is like this. You have cells that make up tissues, and tissues make up organs.
1
"The fact that "everyone can do it" does not justify a low wage. " Yes it does.
1
Fredrik, I love what I study. I also know I can use my skills to earn more. There are some things I don't enjoy about my job, but that is with every job.
1
"Why is it a big deal of Bernie Sanders have 3 homes? He is not against capitalism, and not against getting rich." Yes he is. He feels it is a problem how so few has so much and we should tax them more. Meanwhile he owns three homes. He is a part of the "few" that has "so much". "Its the big question of where our taxes are going and what people should be getting taxed depending on how much you make. " Which can be handled at the state and local level. The more local government is the greater ability people have to see if they are getting their money's worth. "but seriously guys arguing that bernie has 3 homes, this is whats wrong with america" No, what is wrong is what Trump said in his speech. People were suffering in the US while the politicians in DC were getting richer. People were losing their homes while Bernie was buying a third.
1
"So you're saying the employees have to accept wages that are relative to the profits said company makes? So if a company is starting to go into red, the employees have to work for free? To make sure the company stays afloat?" Nope. I am saying that you will be paid the market rate. If you can't find a way to sell your labor for a higher wage than that is on you. But, if a company is constantly in the red they will fire workers.
1
"Nice self-ownage. You are correct - Sanders would tax 'them' more. And you are also correct that he is part of 'them'. You just admitted that Sanders is fighting for a change that will bring disadvantages to himself." Then how come he bought a third home and not just donate the money? Also, he constantly cries about millionaires and billionaires. At times the 1%, but the 1% make up more than just millionaires and billionaires. He wants to tax big corporations more which he has nothing invested in. He is not a millionaire nor a billionaire. Also, he earns money through our tax dollars. He is not the one making an investment through a business. So no, he is not bringing change that will disadvantage himself.
1
Terry, my point is that Bernie ran a campaign about how few have so much and that wealth inequality is a problem in this country. Meanwhile he buys a third home. I have no problem with people owning multiple homes. I have a problem with hypocrites, especially if they are a politician.
1
"Bernie is about getting decent pay for hard work." One, you avoided the question. Next, define "decent". What is a "decent pay" and what standard do you use? And what is "hard work"? Define that as well. Is flipping burgers at Burger King harder than being an EMT?
1
"which makes him one of the "poorest" US Senators." So now you support failure? Do you praise someone for having one of the lowest GPA's in school? Also, you did avoid the question. Why didn't have just donate that money to a university? One of the Koch Brothers donated millions to John Hopkins University.
1
You know what else we had in the 60s? Stricter immigration laws and lower taxes. Also, every other country was rebuilding after the war putting us at an economic advantage. We also did not have the EPA or OSHA and the federal student loan programs we have now.
1
"The USA had higher taxes" In 1967 there were 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 at the time that paid $0 in federal taxes. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 was passed. We also didn't have the Department of Education in the 60s either.
1
"It all starts with the rich, kiddo... They're holding all the cards so they make the rules" Actually government makes the rules. If there are limitations on the powers the federal government has than they can't be bought. Really, do you want this same corrupt federal government to run your healthcare and college education? Sure, Bernie might be fine and all, but what about all the other members of the federal government? "He wants to eliminate income tax and raise sales taxes to compensate" Not a bad idea as it will get illegals who are in this country to pay taxes. "but is there really a point to giving people more money then telling them everything costs proportionately more" Several states, including mine, do it with success. I don't buy much so the increase in the taxes are not that big of a deal. I have more income due to no income taxes. " Tho I suppose we could give another 100 years to trickle down economics" Trickle down economics is not even an economic term. It is a political phrase use to politicians and economic illiterates.
1
Bart, what are you trying to prove? I know about the Tax Reform Act of 1969. It was to try to raise taxes on the rich since they weren't paying to begin with.
1
Bart, what are you even saying? How am I having trouble with texts? Please explain. What am I studying? Physical chemistry. Fun fact, the most common degree for CEOs is engineering.
1
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/how-spot-sociopath Bernie has a lot of those qualities. He has the signs of a sociopath.
1
Bart, what is wrong with that sentence? In 1967 there were 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 that year and paid $0 in federal taxes. As a result the Tax Reform Act of 1969 was passed. I am thinking you are not sure what you mean.
1
"He now has multiple appointees to his cabinet from GS. So what the hell do you have to say about that?" Who said I was praising Trump? I had problems with Trump. He wasn't nearly as bad as Bernie "the socialist with three homes" Sanders.
1
"Uhm.. so because 155 people didn't pay taxes because of tax credits and decuctions, that means taxes in general were lower?" Yes, it does mean they were lower. You can use almost anything as a write off in those days. "What? You consider him a failure because he doesn't take money from lobbyists and special interests?" Him being the poorest senator is not really something to brag about. I can express it in a different way. You saying he is the poorest senator is like saying a certain sprinter in the Olympics was the slowest sprinter. He is still fast. Bernie has a different political strategy. Still doesn't mean he is better than other senators.
1
Having three homes does make him dishonest. It is apparently OK for him to own three homes but other people can't be rich. That is what he is saying. He ran a campaign on wealth and income inequality but owns three homes himself. Why does he need three home? Why can't he just have one? Why is it OK for him to have so much when millions of Americans are sick and tired of working longer hours for lower wages? Why it OK for him to have so much when so many have so little? " You're the one constantly talking about his 3 homes, so you're the one hung up on his wealth. " Bernie is the one always hung up on wealth. When that small business owner asked him a question the other day his response was "millionaires and billionaires" and "the 1%" and "big corporations". So yes, him owning three homes is relevant considering his entire economic platform was on how so few had so much and so many have so little. I have seen that on taxes. This does show that higher rates does not necessarily mean more revenue. What we should push for is growing GDP and not just raising tax rates. It is what I say, what is higher? 50% of 100 or 10% of 1000?
1
"Both he and his wife are old and could easily need a lot of money if one of them dies and the other needs special care." Senators get nice healthcare coverage. "But still he cannot fight for the poor if he is not willing to give it all away?" He does not need three homes and he can donate his time much like I and others do. Anyone can sit there and yell, what has he actually done for the community? His wife bankrupted a local university. He could have taken that money for that home and gave it to a poor person looking to go to college. He could have bought textbooks for a local high school. He could be helping out at the homeless shelter. He could be doing anything. Instead he is doing town hall discussions in states he isn't even a part of.
1
" Sanders never said no one can be rich. " Then why constantly bring up the 1% and millionaires and billionaires? "Please point to any time where he said it's not ok to be rich." His economic policies. "Or somewhere where he said no one can own more than 1 home. " When he talks about wealth inequality. ". He wants those who have alot of money to pay their fair share." Define "fair share". Looking at his tax plan it is that the rich pay more meaning they can't be rich. "HE WAS RAILING AGAINST MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES THAT BUY POLITICIANS AND RIG THE SYSTEM SO THEY GET RICHER, AND EVERYONE ELSE GETS POORER." And he wants to give those same politicians the power to control your healthcare and college education. " What would be hypocritical was if he didn't pay his taxes when he is critical of rich people and corporations not paying any taxes." But he complains about wealth inequality and so few having so much when he owns three homes himself. His is a part of that "few" that has so much. "Trickle down economics" is not even an economic term. It is a political term used by politicians and economic illiterates.
1
Actually capitalism puts people in charge. All a corporation can do is offer you a job and/or a product. Corporations have no power in capitalism.
1
" if you let capitalism run wild, the first thing you bring back is child labor and/or slavery." Slaves were forced to work and were, by law (the government enforcing it) were considered property. That is not capitalism. Capitalism has developed a situation where kids are attending school longer, more of them are going to college, and more of them are getting a job later. So child labor is a non-issue.
1
Bart, Bernie Sanders does hate America. Hey hates the idea of the Constitution and people having freedom. He hates the idea on what this country was founded on and that is limited government. Bernie fights for 1. Centralized government 2. Redistribution of the wealth 3. Class warfare He rather have everyone be equally poor than people be successful. That is why he always avoids questions dealing with countries like Venezuela.
1
"He brought up the 1% up because most new wealth is going there." Because they are the ones investing to create it. You need to learn what wealth is. When you do you realize that wealth inequality is not really a big deal and is actually natural. " Many of them are also buying politicians." I agree is a problem. That is merely a symptom of a disease. The disease is of a federal government with too much power. Do you want that same federal government that is being bought out to control your healthcare and college education? Bernie seems to. "It's not the same as saying no one can be rich. " Rich is relevant. He wants to bring people down. He feels people are too rich.
1
1. the US Constitution. 2. There were probably more than 155 that earned more than $200,000, but that money is over $1.4 million in today's money. How many people make more than that in the US? The point was that there were rich people, the "millionaires and billionaires" at the time that paid zero dollars in federal taxes. So when people point to the high tax rates of that time in reality nobody paid them.
1
Bart, I know some did not pay taxes. And those that did did not pay that high rate. That is the point. "You think Sanders hates today's Constitution?" Yes, because nowhere does it say that healthcare and education are a right. Nowhere are the words "healthcare" and "education" are listed in the constitution thus it should become a state issue. The constitution placed strict limitations on all governments, especially the federal government. Bernie wants to do away with that concept of limited government and more local government. Fun fact: I seem to know more about the Constitution than you do. You have yet to show why I hate the Constitution.
1
" "If the Constitution doesn't SPECIFICALLY say healthcare, the federal government can't do it.." Bullshit. " It is not bullshit. It is limitations on the government. There is a desire to have government. The issue is that we need to be able to control it. That is what the constitution did. If you look at the history of the Constitution you will see that it gave citizens the ability to control governments and, with the exception of treason and selected service, did not give the government the potential to have power over the people. Before 1913 the only taxes at the federal level were taxes on imports and exports and taxes on the states, not citizens. The levels were the citizens controlled the state governments and the state governments worked for their citizens. And the states controlled the federal government and the federal government catered to the states, not individuals citizens. That is why, at the federal level, states were taxed instead of citizens. That is why you only vote for representatives in your state and not others. That is why the electoral college exists. As a whole the constitution placed limitations on all governments. Healthcare is a state issue. "If we the people decide that its in our interest to have single payer health care we have every right to make it happen." And you do, at the state level.
1
"Because nobody cared about healthcare and education 330 years ago! " That is not true. Those issues were important. The problem is that if government runs healthcare and education than it has the potential to control you. N. Korea has universal education, is that really a success? Now that is the extreme case but can very much happen. That is why states run education because at the state level you have the ability to control government more. And if a state fails you have the freedom, as listed in the Constitution, to move to another state.
1
"How about we have American citizens vote on this? " You can, at the state level. " but the government opting to spend money on weapons of war is better than having healthy intelligent citizens?" The federal government does that to serve the states to protect them from foreign enemies and deal with foreign affairs, both of which the states cannot do. If you want to educate the population than do it at the state level. Push to have the most intelligent citizens in the US at your state.
1
". the increased spending and give aways does not change behavior? really? so economics and human action do not exist.with defense? " We have a surplus of people joining the military and they are providing a service to the entire nation either way. With giving money to attend college you are increasing the demand for colleges when we lack professors, TAs, dorms, equipment and so on. You are giving money to students to demand a service. With defense you are giving money to people that we have a surplus of to provide a service. That is where the difference lies.
1
"The framers of the Constitution created the mechanism of Constitutional Amendments specifically to make it a living document that could adjust to changing times" And amending the Constitution was cumbersome. "hy do we waste countless hours parsing the phrasing of a document written over 200 years ago?" Because the philosophical idea behind it holds true. It was to allow for government to exist but to have limits on it. There is a desire to have government, but too much government is just as bad as no government. "The Founding Father's intentions about privacy, free speech, and the right to bear arms never anticipated modern technology." Oh yes it did. One of the founding fathers was an inventor. The idea that they never thought of a time when technology would improve is asinine. The idea behind free speech, privacy and bear arms is to give people power over the government and freedom from it. It was to prevent tyranny. "Did John Adams have an opinion about whether the government could hack your smartphone without a warrant? Did Jefferson intend for individuals to have the right to own weaponry capable of killing people by the dozens? " At the time there already exist weaponry that can kill people by the dozens. So that argument is null. " If we need to rewrite antiquated sections of the Constitution to reflect the needs of modern society, we simply write an Amendment to the Constitution. " The philosophical argument is the same though.
1
"he's not a hypocrite because he wants to close the gap in income inequality, and he happens to be wealthy. His plight is more valid because he is wealthy actually. If he were broke, people would call him a bum." There are a few issues here. One, people defend him saying he earned his money and thus can enjoy it. Well, why can't you say that with other rich people such as the millionaires and billionaires? Bernie complains about how wealthy the Walton family when in reality they earned their money and wealth as well. They just decided to run a business with it. How they conduct it should not be Bernie's business just like no one should care about him owning three homes. But Bernie wants to tell the Walton family how to run their wealth. So that makes him a hypocrite. Another issue is he is not leading by example. Why did he buy a third home? Why didn't he donate that money? What is he doing to help society? He preaches about everyone working together, but what work does he do? He could have donated that money to a university for new lab equipment or something. Instead he is saying to society "you do all the work and I just sit here and talk". A third issue is that he does an a lot to gain with the federal government gaining more power. That puts him in charge. If he is going to be in charge he needs to have limits. I have suggested in the past that politicians are paid the same as the median yearly earnings of US citizens, that way they push for a stronger economy and not a system that benefits just themselves.
1
"Learn to quit when you're behind." What I am reading with that is that you have zero rebuttal so you are begging me to stop making you look foolish. " What's YOUR degree in? " I have two degrees, physics and chemistry and I am pursuing a PhD in Chemical Physics. ""Why didn't he donate that money?" So anyone who fights inequality has to take a vow of poverty first? " I never said take a vow of poverty. But why does he need three homes? Why does he have so much when so many have so little? He talks about us working together, what does he do? He just sits there on stage and runs his mouth. Anyone can do that. What is he saying is "you do all the work and I enjoy my three homes and talk". To you it is black or white. You feel that I think Bernie should live in poverty. I never suggested that. I would like for him to contribute to society in some way beyond running his mouth. He is all talk and no action. He had the money to buy a $600,000 house. He could have donated that money. Now if he did not own a house and wanted to buy one then fine, I will have no problem with that. But he owns three now but meanwhile tells others to take sacrifices.
1
"How about trying to pass populist bills that actually help the middle class and poor. " I actually do a lot. My research can help in progressing the medical field. I also teach physics and offer a lot of time to tutor my students for free which is needed. I actually take actions. Bernie wants "free college" but I don't see him pushing people to become professors, or him becoming one himself. Instead his solution is "tax the rich". Someone has to provide those services to people. He is not going to do it. All he is going to do is tax the rich and enjoy his three homes. People like me are going to be the ones working.
1
Bart, there are a lot of things people don't care about now. That is why we need government. At the same time we have to be able to control government which is why we have a Constitution. It placed limitations on all governments. Changes in domestic issues were to be done at the state and local level. Now issue by issue Protecting the environment.: Prior to the EPA air quality was improving. This can be handled at the state level. Also, I have been given many charts that showed as productivity went up wages remained stagnate. That trend started in the early 70s. While there are several factors there the EPA was created around that time (along with OSHA). Voting rights for women.: Which was changed via the Constitution because women pay taxes as well and are affected by the government thus they too should have a say Healthcare.: This is also an issue, but if the government were to have a say or be involved it would be at the state level. Other social insurance: Same with healthcare Universal education: Public education has been ran and funded at the state level for centuries. The Department of Ed was not created until the late 1970s. Did education cease to exist before that? No. Also, the federal government did not get deeply involved until 1965 when it started to give out loan. After that college tuition went up. On Bernie's own cite he said "In 1965, average tuition at a four-year public university was just $243 and many of the best colleges" Kind of ironic he picked 1965.....or is it considering that was the year the federal government decided to get involved in financing college education as much as it does. Also, with government education that can lead to indoctrination when you don't control government. There is that fear as well which is why it was left up to the states. Illegal immigration: Was already considered Votings rights for Blacks. Citizenship for Blacks. Not being property All were changed in the Constitution sticking to the idea of having people have the rights to control government, same as with women voting. "None of these things were even considered by anyone back in the late 18th century." Some were. "The Founding Fathers knew that new issues would arise in the future (which is now the present and the past). That is why they introduced Amendments." But are cumbersome to pass. " The fact they did not mention any of the things that I listed above is meaningless - they simply did not know about them. " I am sure they did in a lot of ways. It came down to which level of government should be running it, if at all. As with education, if we were to have it than the states should manage it. It comes back to the states provided for the citizens and the citizens ran the states. Where the federal government provided for the states and the states ran the federal government. The federal government wasn't supposed to be involved with providing education to the citizens. As I said, if they did there will be fear of indoctrination or control. The more local government is the more control you have over it. Before the Revolution the colonies were paying less taxes than the British. The fact was that they wanted control. Not a centralized government but a government they can control, thus more local government. "BTW - "General Welfare" is in the Constitution. " Yes, general welfare. They were to promote it, not promise or guarantee it. I can encourage my students to study physics and do well. I can't take the tests for them. The federal government can encourage states to offer education to their citizens, they can't offer it to them though. That is what is meant by "promote general welfare". You have to read the whole thing. "The Constitution is a living, breathing thing. It is quite different from, say, the Ten Comandments." What does the ten commandments have to do with anything?
1
"using the exact same words as Trump to describe another member of the Civil Rights Movement " And what did he do? He just sat there and made noise. No different than what he does now. Again, all talk and no actions. Anyone can complain. Actions speak louder than words. "Then again, since you got owned on everything you wrote," No I haven't. You have not given a rebuttal at all to what I wrote.
1
Bart, you did not give me a rebuttal. I gave you a nice, long comment responding to how people did care about things such as education and healthcare in the past. Instead you just said I got owned. You have yet to give a rebuttal to that argument where I even quoted from Bernie's own website.
1
Bart, I did not. I referred to how the founding fathers created the concept of state rights so that the states can deal with those issues and have. That is why the states offered education. The idea was the states were to deal with those issues, not the federal government. I guessed you missed that point.
1
Bart, I just think you are mad because I quoted Bernie's own website showing I know more about him than you do.
1
Bart, you seem like you are becoming frustrated. But here is the quote "In 1965, average tuition at a four-year public university was just $243 and many of the best colleges" Also, I noticed you did not defend you idea of general welfare considering you forgot to add the word "promote" in that phrase.
1
"I do not understand what the problem is with that quote. " You didn't read my comment then. He picks 1965 because that was the year the federal government started the student loan program which caused tuition to skyrocket. So he is cherry picking a year. It is promote general welfare. That is why the federal government does not get involved in healthcare, education and should not be involved in social welfare programs. The states do it. That is the point, it promotes it, but does not guarantee it nor forces it. So really, with what you said supports my case and shows how Bernie is full of crap.
1
tim, if you are not careful you will trigger Bart. Also, he won't read any of your comments because he never reads mine but still insists on calling me names.
1
"ummm ... yes! Because he wanted an example from a time when tuitions didn't cost much. Sure, he could have chosen 1950 as well. It makes no difference." But he just do happen to pick 1965, the year the loan program was created thus before tuition skyrocketed due to the federal government getting involved in funding college. What that shows is if the federal government were to get involved in funding college than the price will go up, or the quality will go down unless we place restrictions on it like Germany does. What I said about Germany is not wrong, students are tracked. That is how the limit who can attend college. Other countries do similar things for example you are limited in how many colleges you can apply to in a year. I applied to 12 graduate programs and was accepted to 10. I had my choices. In other countries you are limited to five and in some cases one for programs like medical school. That is how they are able to manage "free college". Even at that their university system is still different in so many ways and as a whole are inferior in quality compared to the US.
1
"Again - it is not about the reasons why tuition skyrocketed." It is called supply and demand. You gave students money specifically to attend college and you gave it to almost anyone. You increased the demand for college without increasing the supplies thus colleges increased their costs. That is why tuition went up and that is why Bernie's program will cost way more than he projected. If you really went to school you clearly did not study economics. This is basic supply and demand. What is your reason why tuition skyrocketed? And yes, Germany does track students. Other countries do have restrictions on college enrollment and applications. Also, their university systems are different and inferior which you also have not addressed. But you are also the one who has not given a reason why tuition is increasing. This alternative facts shit is not normal. Seek help.
1
See, here's the problem, you have no audience like Bernie Sanders which is why he lost. You know you are lying about Germany. I have a colleague from Germany who was tracked for a trade school. He came to the US to attend college (the US has the highest rate of international students) and is now a PhD candidate. You also cannot read because I asked you what caused tuition to skyrocketed. You have not answered that. Those student loans were used on public colleges and universities. I fully understand Bernie's plan. I don't see you repeating it proves anything because as of right now you are ignoring my question. What caused tuition to skyrocket? And under Bernie's plan what will prevent colleges from just raising prices?
1
Those questions I asked are similar questions Bernie was asked. He could not answer them. He did what you did, reference other countries (and lied about them) and repeated his plan. But he could not answer any questions. You and Bernie think the same and are in complete denial.
1
Bart, just like Bernie you are avoiding the questions and trying to divert the attention to something else.
1
"how exactly could they get more expensive in the future?" We lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, classrooms, equipment and so on. You will either have to lower the quality or increase prices to pay the current staff for working more and build more dorms, classrooms, buy new equipment and keep them maintained. You are increasing demand thus prices will go up.
1
We are a nation that is $20 trillion in debt. We don't have the money.
1
Bart, I agree with that statement. In reality there is a reason why people are poor and a lot of it has to do with poor money management skills.
1
Things have a lifetime and thus they cost money. Light bulbs have a lifetime and need to be replaced. Ships and submarines get old and need to be repaired and replaced. All these things add up over time. I know most liberals never had to keep a budget and maintain something, but that is how it works.
1
" America already spends more money on the military than the next 7 biggest spenders" And the US GDP is larger than those 7 countries combine. When you put it in that perspective you realize how asinine that argument. It only makes sense we spend more than them combine when our GDP is larger than those countries' combine.
1
Light bulbs were an example. There are several items that need to be replaced and repaired It all adds up. We are talking about things that are designed to be reliable to keep people alive. It isn't like your car when the dome light doesn't work you just don't fix it.
1
"if the US GDP is so big why don't America have free healthcare and affordable tuition costs like the rest of the developed world" Ever thought us not having it is the reason why our GDP is so big? Also, we have states that are larger than most countries. You can't just say "well other countries do it, why can't the US?". It isn't that easy. We are the most diverse country in the world. Compared to other countries we deal with a lot more. You can't just have a one size fits all policy. Also, those other countries are not doing that well so in reality I really don't want to copy them.
1