Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Has Some Questions For Trump's Education Pick..." video.

Betsy: "Nothing in life is free" Bernie: "MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES" Bernie and his ideas are losing, and this video is the reason why. How about he comes up with something different than just attacking the rich.
16
ArchaeopterX, I am going off of the Constitution. But we do have such a system. You have city cops, don't you? And county sheriffs, don't you? And different school districts in the state, don't you? So yes, we do have a system like that. Heck, if you want you can home school you kid and limited it to just the home. I get what you are trying to do with you condescending argument, it won't work with me.
2
Liberals, this is what you wanted. People were pushing for limited federal government state rights. That was the design of this country through the Constitution. But you wanted the federal government to have all this power. So now enjoy a man you don't like exploited the system you created. You have no one to blame but yourself now.
1
This has everything to do with big government. Most libertarians on those on the right support state rights. You want public education, you run it at the state and local level like it used to be before Jimmy Carter. But instead liberals wanted the federal government to become involved in the public education system as well. This is the result.
1
Arun, I actually don't support that at all along with many other republicans.
1
But, Arun, there is a double standard with democrats. They are fine with big government until republicans are in power.
1
And this is the system liberals set up. The Constitution designed the country to have limited government and more state rights. People were pushing for it. Instead liberals wanted more power at the federal level. So now a guy you don't like comes in and exploits it. Enjoy the system you created.
1
Ryan, we are united through the constitution. As a US citizen I have rights I can use to control governments. I can travel across the country freely if I so desire and have the same rights as everyone else. At the same time the role of government in domestic issues and people's lives is very vague. That was the problem the founding fathers ran into in the past so they listed the roles of the federal government and gave all other responsibilities to the states. That was the design. If you look into it the only tax at the federal level were taxes on imports and exports, and a tax on the states. The states control the federal government and the people controlled the states. That was the progression. That is why we are called the United States as opposed to the United People. That is why we never had a department of education until the late 70s. Nor did we have an EPA or OSHA until the early 70s. They were unconstitutional systems.
1
1. Never really said you were liberal, but you are not criticizing the system which I am, so you support what they created 2. Yes they did. The federal government expanded the most in the 30s under FDR and in the 60s under Johnson. 3. It isn't a shallow oversimplification. Democrats have not been fighting for state control. Republicans have to a point, but to be fair they have done their fair share of expanding the federal government. 4. Yes it does
1
Tierra, I know what I am saying. You are saying that 1. You need government to educate you 2. You want other people to pay for it. Also, it is debatable if other countries are doing better than us. What do you value in education, being productive of being great test takers? The US is in the top 5 in productivity. But, in the end, the states should be running education.
1
You have to earn grants and scholarships.
1
1. For K-12 I can see that, but it has to be done at the state level. If you can't figure things out after the K-12 education system you are a lost cause 2. This is already done at the state level for the K-12 system. After that you are on your own
1
"States have failed in delivering quality, affordable education" How so? If anything the federal government with their loan program has made tuition higher. " Time to make them pay but put more power in federal" Ok, so when another crazy individual becomes in charge the whole country is now screwed? "This is a global economy, that requires skills to compete at a global level." Which we can do with no federal government action. "We cant keep pretending that texas rewriting science so they can add creationism and alabama banning contraceptive education is ok and can compete globally. " You can't teach creationism in a science classroom. On Alabama, that is their issue. " If something has failed for decades then stop believeing that it has the right solution." Like the Department of Ed
1
Spending in education has been rising for years. I fail to see the cuts. Also, I do feel teacher unions are a problem as they care more about teachers keeping a job no matter how bad they are as opposed to kids being educated. What is your comparison on the global level? Testing or productivity? The US is in the top 5 in productivity. We produce productive individuals. I rather have that. And where did I ever support complete privatization of education? Never.
1
Also, the department of ed was created in the late 70s. How much has education really improved then? All we get are one standard after another. Goals 2000, NCLB, CCSS....really, is that an improvement?
1
Glen, we don't have the money. Even at that we also lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, class rooms, equipment, time and so on. How do you expect to provide tuition free college when we lack resources? You, like Bernie and his other supporters, are stuck looking at dollars. You are not looking at the real goods and services that need to be available in order for these programs to work. So no, we can't afford tuition free college unless we lower the quality of it. Just like K-12 public education where we have building falling apart, low quality of teachers and so on.
1
"Yeah those cost money " If they don't exist than it doesn't matter how much money you have. You can't consume what you don't produce, period. Take organ donations for example. We have a waiting list despite people who want them being able to afford them. You know why there is a waiting list? Because the organs for those people don't exist. In the city I live in we are having an influx of people moving here because one, college enrollment is increasing and two, new jobs are being created. But we are limited in places to rent so you know what happened? Rent went up because of limitations. In my university we, due to the influx of students, lack TAs right now. So we are hiring people who are not qualified to teach the subject, basically we are putting a warm body in front of the students. For example, and undergrad biology major was teaching a physics lab. Is that really productive for the students. In the end you can't consume what you don't produce. If the goods and services are not there than it doesn't matter how much money you throw at it.
1
"Do you think taxes should be abolished entirely" No, but us as a society should make sure that we are getting our money's worth in government spending. You do that by keeping government and government spending as local as possible. You can see if you are getting your money's worth is you witness it first hand. That as opposed to the federal government spending it on something you don't benefit from. What you are talking about with no taxes is no government which is just as bad as too much government. The founding fathers designed the system to near perfection with the Constitution to where the basic idea is that the roles of the federal government are listed and limited, and all other duties are left to the states. With more local government not only can you see if your tax dollars are being spent well, but you can also control government more to ensure that it remains the servants as opposed to the masters. On top of that, consider this. The only federal taxes were taxes on imports and exports and taxes on the states. The states control the federal government and we controlled the states. That the levels of government and who controls who. The federal government was to have no control over the citizens beyond acts of treason or selected services. There is value in having government and taxes, granted that us as a society get our money's worth and government works for us. You only get that with smaller, more local government.
1
mars2318, where did I ever suggest that I wanted the rich to make all the rules?
1
mae, I make $21,000 a year.
1
He didn't tell her where the payment will come from. He made the same comment he always does of "millionaires and billionaires". That is not an answer. The rich are not just going to freely hand out their money like that. " you realize that the middle class pay more taxes than them but make less." That is not true. "That they don't mind paying more taxes" Fine, how about they donate their money. We have donors that donate money to my university all the time. Also, it isn't about being able to pay for it. How do you provide it? We lack professors, TAs, tutors, dorms, equipment, classrooms and so on. We simply don't have the resources right now to provide college education for all without increasing the price or lowering the quality.
1
That link are state and local taxes. So I don't see how that is related here since this will involve federal taxes. As is the top 10% earn 40% of the income but pay around 70% of the federal income taxes. "This is due to most rich people paying through investment of capital gains tax," Which is another discussion in itself. We need to simplify the tax code. I support the pre 1913 standard of 0 federal income taxes and only a tax on the states. Nice and simple and no one can complain because they are not being taxed. But, in the end the rich do pay for most of the taxes. Sorry to break it to you. "If you are arguing quantity, then you must be lying about the University you are attending since you can't seem to understand the difference" You don't have to believe me. My degrees and doctorate candidacy says otherwise. " someone making 1 billion dollars losing .0001 of their salary will be more than someone making 50 thousand dollars donating 100% because of the amount of money the billionaire makes but thats the reason we tax on percentage, because otherwise the person making 50 thousand could never match anyone making more. " And what's your point? Why did that person earn a billion? Maybe they developed a lot of jobs for people who weren't tax payers in the past but are now. Ever consider that? The issue is more complicated than what you are making it sound. This is ultimately why Bernie lost, he tries to make complex things sound so simple. "Well, if we just tax the millionaires and billionaires than everything can be free!" If it were that easy it would have been done by now, but it isn't.
1
Glen, it isn't about paying professors. We simply lack them. What is the unemployment rate for those with a Masters degree or higher? These people have jobs, they simply just don't exist in high quantity to provide and education to all.
1
You pew research link did not lead me to anything. "pay around 50% of income taxes but again you are attempting to extrapolate quantity for percentage rather than individual taxes which is what everyone is referring too. Is that to hard of a concept for you to understand?" What are you referring to? To be honest I am not understanding what you are saying. The fact is that the rich do pay most of the federal income taxes in the US. Is that "fair"? Why not push for a flat tax? Or what I support, a tax on the states at the federal level? It seems like you want to just raise taxes on the rich because you feel they don't pay enough for some arbitrary reason. "How is that another discussion? That is major issue in taxes and why so many people are able to escape taxes. The reality is, there should be no way for corporations to escape taxes, and that means the rich people running them should not be able to escape either." Pre-1913, minus a few years of a temporary tax, no individual or corporation paid any federal taxes. Why should corporations pay federal taxes to begin with? You seem like you just want to tax them but failed to give a reason why. " If individually every person except for the person making a trillion dollars paid 100% taxes," Who is expecting a 100% tax anyone? " and the person making 1 trillion dollars pays 1% taxes, the 1 person quantity wise has paid more taxes overall however this is where your failure in critical thinking comes in which makes me doubt your "degree" that you claim to have. Each individual in taxes pays far more % wise compared to the person making a trillion dollars." Well you are suggesting that everyone pays a 100% tax rate which no one is suggesting for anyone. Say we have a flat tax of 20%. What percent does everyone pay? 20%. That's it. I really don't know where you are getting at with this 100% tax rate. What I suggested at the federal level was either a tax on the states or a flat tax. But, what we have now is the that top 10% earn 40% of the income but pay 70% of the taxes. If it were really fair the top 10% will pay only 40% of the taxes since they earn only 40% of the income. Also, for that one person to have that $1 trillion they most likely produced something that the vast majority of the 100 wanted and were willing to pay for. That is how they got their money. "It doesn't matter what the person did, the point is taxes are suppose to be fair," I agree. So the top 10% should only be paying for 40% of the federal taxes. " Does a doctor get lower taxes for saving lives?" No, but they shouldn't be taxed more which they are now. "The fact that you keep saying this is so shocking, Bernie isn't saying everything can be free. What he is saying is rich do not pay their fair share," But, in reality the rich pay more than their fair share. " Someone making 50k should not pay more taxes(Percentage wise) than someone making 50 million" Which I agree. In fact the opposite is happening.
1