Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "America Feels The Bern: Bernie Sanders Now Front-Runner" video.

+Jessica Rabbit Bernie Sanders is a part of the establishment. He is a career politician.
1
+Jessica Rabbit He doesn't speak for the people, he speaks for himself. He does what it takes to win. When emotion goes up reasoning goes down. Bernie's supporters are driven off of emotions and not reason. He takes advantage of that, no different than an angry mob. In his interviews he is all rhetoric and no specifics. If you break down his economic policies you will see that they simply won't work, but that requires reason, not emotions. Also, Bernie is in his 70s. He is simply running now because he is retiring. As a career politician he either wins and ends at the top or he loses and goes out with a bang. He doesn't care about anyone but himself. Why didn't he run for president earlier in his career?
1
+Jessica Rabbit What do people want? Do people want higher wages? Yes. Even if you were to break down what people support you will see they don't support Bernie Sanders. People across the country won't support a $15/hr min. wage, especially after seeing it kill a bunch of jobs in midwestern agriculture states. People want healthcare for all, but even Vermont could not pass it when they say the tax increase.
1
+AgainstYourThought Blacks won't come out to vote, especially in the midterms.
1
+BoyScouts1 Because he is economically illiterate.
1
+Andy Nguyen Bernie Sanders is a radical and is economically illiterate. People that support him are like the Occupy Wall Street people, a bunch of disgruntle 20 year old that don't understand the issues. He is all rhetoric and no specific. If you were to break down all of his economic policies you will see how flaw they are, that is why he never gets into detail about any of them. In all he is a career politician that buys the votes from very ignorant people.
1
+Kenji Yamada There are outliers everywhere.
1
+Kenji Yamada I went a Bernie Sanders rally and say a bunch of 20 year old with a few old people. As a whole the crowd was young.
1
+Kalmon salmon Young people are not experienced.
1
+Kalmon salmon Young people are emotional and ignorant just like everyone else. They mainly care about now, not the future, especially when they never had responsibility.
1
+Daniel Martinez I am not a conservative, I am a moderate. We have proof that Bernie's ideas don't work. None of his economic ideas will work. We have over 70 years of proof in this country alone.
1
+Kalmon salmon His ideas are being used. College loans were used on the idea to make college affordable, it drove up tuition cost. Medicare and Medicaid are our form of socialized healthcare. We have a min. wage that has done nothing but kill jobs and raise prices and hurt small towns. We do a lot more of Bernie's policies than you think.
1
+Kalmon salmon Bernie said that the states will pick up 1/3 of the tap. And if college becomes "free" how to you make up for the lack of professors, TAs, classroom sizes, rooms, tutors etc? We lack those things already. Medicare is not a good program, it is one of the reasons for higher costs. You can't tie the min. wage to productivity. Some areas of the economy has improved in productivity due to technology, some have not though. It is called Skilled Bias Technological Change. Europe consists of several countries is populations smaller than most US states. I agree that we can follow a similar model by practicing state rights. Get rid if all federal domestic policies such as the federal min. wage, medicare, medicaid, federal student loans etc. and let the states handle it. Bernie is against that.
1
+Kalmon salmon Europe is not a federal union. They do have the EU but all the countries set their own taxes, regulations and overall rules. The US was designed like this, the federal government dealt with foreign affairs and enforced the constitution on the states. The states dealt with domestic policies and enforced the constitution on the fed. It is not that we will be 50 separate countries. We can move from state to state freely and have rights listed in the constitution. In Europe you have to deal with immigration laws going from one country to another. What Bernie wants is too much government. When he gives that much power to the fed. what is going to prevent future federal politicians from abusing it? At the state level you can move and you have more control of the government at the state and local level. You have little to almost no control of the government at the federal level. Plus a one size fits all policy won't work. Take the min. wage for example. A $15/hr min. wage will destroy small towns in midwestern states with large agriculture. The $7.25/hr min. wage does it already. The entire town simply can't afford it, let alone businesses. Why do you support Bernie who is pushing for policy that destroys small towns? We need government, but we need to be able to control it. Too much government is just as bad as no government. What Bernie wants is too much government. He is going to compound our problems. And when he is gone future politicians will take advantage of the new power they now have. The pure fact is that Bernie's ideas won't work at the federal level and will just compound our problems.
1
+Kalmon salmon What about John Kasich?
1
+Kalmon salmon Bush has no chance of winning. We do have choices. Sanders is the worse of all of them.
1
+Kalmon salmon What ideas make Europe rich? As I said every country has their own way of running the show. Bernie just points towards them but does not give specifics, neither do you. You do know that some of those European countries have stricter immigration laws than the US does? Seems like Trump is taking that aspect of Europe. Why don't you support him?
1
+Kalmon salmon Looking into it the EU is really hands off in what countries do. It is more of a uniform monetary system and the EU deals with foreign trade, something I support and feel the US should be limited to. Domestic policies are left to the countries such as it should be with the states. The EU doesn't have an individual income tax much like the US never did at the federal level for over a century. It was a tax on the states. So the EU is not a federal system like the US. The EU has does not run healthcare, the US does have a large role in it's healthcare at the federal level. The EU does not run education. The US does. Also the EU is newer compared to the US. The EU give more autonomy to the countries where the US is taking away more state rights and creating a larger centralized government. They are different overall. The EU allows for more freedom as is something republicans want.
1
+Kalmon salmon If the EU were to grow and remove autonomy from the other countries they will run into the same problems we are seeing now in the US.
1
+Kalmon salmon The US has a distinctive history as well. There are EU countries that stole their land. The federal government has power, it is there to keep all the states and citizens connected as a whole. Change comes at the state level.
1
+Kalmon salmon That is the false fear people bring up with state rights gets mentioned. What state is going to destroy their environment? Education is fully, 100% determined by the states. Do you see states doing 100% private on it? Do you see states purposely dumbing down their population? No. Same is with the environment. The issue of climate is very complex, it isn't an easy solution and has several questions behind it. The federal government can't do anything about it nor do I want them to try. It will do more harm than good.
1
+Kalmon salmon What can the government really do about climate change? It has been happening for over 4 billion years. What makes you think the US won't do anything at the state level? In my home state of MO we became the first state to have an entire town run off of wind power. Desert states such as AZ and NV are putting up more solar panels. Things are being done it just takes time. What is your suggestion? I but what you suggest will only make the overall situation worse.
1
+Picture Me Trollin' The alternative to raising lots of money is lowering the quality. We are seeing that with college. College loans makes enrollment larger and we have classroom sizes of over 200 students. Working for the university I have to manage and coordinate tutors and review sessions and it is not easy with so many students. What happens in the end is that we cut corners and the students don't get a great education. If it were "free" it would be a lot worse. Same goes with healthcare. We can pay for it with our current tax rate, but we will have to lower quality. We see that in other countries.
1
+Michael P Social security is failure. It is running out of money. Social security was not contributing to poverty going down, what was contributing was the fact that we had, for the most part a hands off government that allow the market to grow, especially after a war when every other country was rebuilding and we weren't. When the "War on Poverty" was created poverty stagnated. Bernie Sanders' policies is all rhetoric and no specifics. If you were to take his economic policies and break them down you will see that they simply won't work. He is economically illiterate.
1
+Michael P You didn't explain how Social Security works because the fact is that it doesn't. It is running out of money. If college education is "free" is will be worse off for several reasons. As is we are short handed professors, we have large classroom sizes and lack resources for all students. If you make it "free" you will increase enrollment. So how you are going to make up for the fact that we lack professors, classrooms, resources etc. already? I work for a university and I see it first had that we have too many students and not enough resources. This is why when college loans came tuition went up, it made up the difference for lack of resources. Demand for college went up but supply stayed the same. People right now are fine on social security, but in the future it will go bankrupt. This is predictable under major socialist programs, the resources run out. I don't care about now, I care about the future. On poverty-poverty as a whole was dropping, as I said social security had nothing to do with it. I have researched Sanders' plans, they are not specific. Give me any one of his economic policies and I will actually break them down and how who they simply won't work. The best was when he was debating Douglas Holtz-Eakin on the min. wage and Bernie was harping on Walmart and nothing but Walmart. But when Douglas start getting into more specifics and tried to steer Bernie away from Walmart he refused to acknowledge the question and went back to Walmart. He had zero specifics. If you break down his arguments you see that he has no clue what he is talking about. Give me any economic policy of Bernie Sanders and I will break it down showing how ignorant he is. And I read your comment on Social Security, you simply said "it works" without specifics. It is running out of money, that is not a sign of it working.
1
+Michael P Yes social security is a pay as you go system, and it is running out of money. We have a large class of senior citizens because social security did not account for life expectancy going up. People are living longer but yet any talk of raising the age of social security is put to shame. Asking people to work longer is put to shame. That is a flaw in socialist policies in a large scale, people refuse to work thus the programs run out of money. If you want SS to be "successful" in any form you have to raise the age of retirement and simply tell older people to save up or work. How do you make sure the middle and working class is still around? This is where you are lacking specifics.
1
+Michael P Somehow raise taxes and more government spending. Not matter how you slice it that is how he is going to do it. That is not my concern. My concern is how are you going to counter for the lack of resources we already have at universities? We lack professors, dorm rooms, computers, rooms in general for both classes and tutoring, tutors, TAs etc. How do you counter for that? He never gets into detail about that. He simply says raise this tax, spend here and.......boom.....free college. Ok, now how about these other problems? Or the problem of devaluing the college degree? Or people like me who will press charges and demand that my current loan be paid off since I should get "free" college. He never factors any of that in.
1
+Michael P It is running out of money because you have output than input. There use to be a surplus in SS because people died sooner. Now people are living longer meaning that SS is losing it's savings and the current taxes are not making up the difference. We can have affordable healthcare and education if the federal government won't touch it. The reason why it is so expensive right now is because of the federal government. On wages, wages are "stagnate" because of price control by the federal government. Even with that wages are not considering benefits given and the fact that we have more disposable income than in the past and it is growing
1
+Michael P I know he doesn't propose to raise my taxes. He was talking about something on raising taxes on Wallstreet or along those lines. In the end it is raising taxes. Plus he wants the states to pay for 1/3 of it, where is that money going to come from? Most likely from my taxes. As I said it goes beyond that. In his plan 75% of students have to be taught by tenure tracked or tenured professors. As I said, we lack professors. Plus, with the increase enrollment what is going to happen to research? Demanding tenure professors do more instruction and less research will hurt research at universities? He never considers that.
1
+Michael P As I said the quality will go down. You will not be getting a good return on your taxes. I enjoyed paying for my own college because I was selective and got in a college with small classroom sizes. If it were "free" classes will be larger and thus you will get less help and won't succeed.
1
+Michael P Productivity has to come from somewhere. It just doesn't appear out of nowhere. So yes, older people have to work longer or save what they produce.
1
+Michael P So tell me, how do the states pay for 1/3 of the college if my taxes are not raised?
1
+Michael P It doesn't matter what the majority of the people want. We are not ran by the majority at the federal level. I bet the majority of the people want their own home, so should we raise taxes and give them that as well? My alternative is to stop it as the federal level and if SS were to exist it would exist at the state and local level. SS was started as part of the New Deal that prolonged the recession making it the slowest recovery ever. Recovery only happen due to the war. If the federal government were to not regulate those things then yes, prices will go down and the product/service will get better. Look at LASIK for example. Look at the internet, computers, cars (before cash for clunkers). They are better at a low price. It isn't out of the goodness of their hearts, it is out of competition for resources. In a competitive market businesses will drop prices and improve product to attract customers. Due to the federal government they dismantle the buyer/seller negotiation and thus prices went up. This is due to college loans and price control from higher taxes in the 40s. We have a lot of spending and regulation as is in those areas, but yet prices go up. So your solution is even more? Employers wanted to give raises in the 40s. Due to higher taxes companies couldn't. If a business were to pay an employee more they would have to had pay more in taxes. So instead they paid in healthcare benefits and retirement benefits that were 100% tax free. That contributed to the "stagnate" wages and the higher healthcare cost. With the min. wage less than 5% earn at or below the min. wage. Businesses already pay more than the min. wage due to competition. There is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage when broken down. And even if you force how much should be paid per hour, you can't per week. So if you increase the min. wage and hours get cut, then what? We saw that in New York where the min. wage increase led to employees being fired.
1
+Michael P Plus on the min. wage most people are employed by small businesses. What about them? Should they be force to pay the min. wage? Bernie was asked the same question, he refused to answer and went straight to walmart, who already pays above the min. wage and at times supported raising it to squash competitors who simply could not afford higher wages.
1
+Picture Me Trollin' It is a bad thing because now the money is being wasted. Bernie wants to have free college for 4 year colleges. Private colleges are expensive and if the federal government were to make public colleges "free" it will only drive up the price of private colleges. That is because they have now set a price floor on college. Thus the private college is only for the rich and the "free" college is so inferior that there will be no point in attending. Thus you have now contributed to the growing income inequality.
1
+Michael P There was no redistribution of the wealth during the war. Every other country was at war thus we had a reason to create labor to develop trade with foreign countries. Redistribution of the wealth is impossible anyway, you can't have it. You only have destruction of wealth. This country has faced several recessions during it's history. Every one of them, except for 2 were recovered from in around 5 years. The two that took the longest was the great depression and now. They were both times where we saw massive federal government involvement to "fix" the economy as in massive spending and regulations and taxes. Every other recession did not see that and saw fast recovery. The New Deal prolong the recession and led to a slow recovery. "Economies thrive when people have more money to spend in it, and when more middle class and working class people have more money to spend. " You can't consume what you don't produce. Giving people more money without increasing production leads to higher prices. If it were that simply then why not mail everyone checks for $20,000 during tax time? "Here is a good reason to have a minimum wage: So people can make enough money to support themselves and their families. " Until you lose your job like those in NY have. "Is college too expensive for people right now? Yes." Due to the federal government it is more expensive. Plus, when you factor in the payback if you get a degree that is actually worth something then it isn't expensive, it is an investment. "Are people not making the money they used to? Does peoples money not go as far as it used to? Yes." Disposable income has been growing for decades now. Since 1960 it has gone up from $2000 billions to $12,000 billions now when adjusted for inflation. "Will corporations pay people as little as possible if the government let them? Yes." And workers will demand a higher wage as well. It goes both ways. If a corporation pays too little, or any business at that then nobody will work for them. "If corporations dont pay enough, then make them." They mathematically can't unless they raise prices and cut jobs. All of our problems have been touched by the federal government in some way shape or form. Adding more fuel to the fire is not going to put it out.
1
+Michael P Redistribution of the wealth did not come after the war. Nobody paid those high taxes. In 1967 there were 155 individuals earning over $200,000 that year that paid zero income tax. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 came about which introduced the alternative minimum tax that exists today. What happen after the war is that the entire world was rebuilding except for us. Now decades later the socialist policies put in place along with the progressive federal income tax are all coming back to bite us in the butt. After Glass Steagall we still had recessions. We had at least 7. Recessions happen, you just never notice because when the federal politicians sit back and do nothing we recover fast. When they panic and do what Obama did recently or FDR did in the past and spend like crazy, increase taxes and regulations the recovery is slow. Noticed how when Glass-Steagall was passed we had the slowest recovery ever? "So the possibility of maybe getting laid off from your job is a good enough reason to deny all the other people a livable wage?" It happens. Plus refrain from using the phrase "livable wage" as it is subjective and means nothing. Jobs overseas will happen. Granted the federal government is speeding up the process which is not good, but it will happen. Technology and innovation and progress replaces jobs. The tractor replaced many farm workers. Computers replace many jobs. If you want jobs then remove technology. Wealth is key though, not jobs. Workers always demand a higher wage, but we can't artificially raise them. And no, corporations simply can't afford them. Plus most people are employed by small businesses, so corporations is not the only issue. You need to stop focusing all your attention on them. " But so far there is no evidence suggesting that higher wages creates a worse situation than we are in already." Artificially high wages do, even Paul Krugman admits that. "Nothing about giving people more money makes the country worse." Tell that to the people in Zimbabwe. " If you find excuses to not give people higher minimum wages, free education and affordable or free healthcare, you are basically saying "fuck you im doing fine. " No, I want high quality at an affordable price, you just want an affordable price. "You keep saying "due to the federal government" college is more expensive, but you need to make a correlation other than just saying it." Look at the college loans they give out. That drove up the cost. "And the involvement, until you can prove otherwise, has not cost you more on your tax returns. " Everything the federal government touches break, that is a fact.
1
+Michael P "The bottom line is that our money fdoesnt go as far as it used to" People have more disposable income even when inflation is include. Medicine and healthcare is expensive due to the federal government dating back to at least the 1940s. LASIK has not been touched by the federal government, it has gotten better and cheaper.
1
+Michael P On healthcare and college I would get the federal government hands off it. That will lead to competition and actual buyer/seller negotiation which will drive down prices much like we say in other aspects of the market that the federal government has not touched. To get money out of politics I will limit the powers of the federal government and stick to more state rights. At the state and local level you have more control of the government and at the federal level if the federal government has limited powers than it can't give it away to the highest bidder. Decrease poverty? Remove all federal welfare programs which is contributed to higher prices and the growing income inequality. Let the states handle it. We are already seeing a higher standard of living.
1
+Michael P You have to look at how the market evolves. As a healthy market evolves things get better and cheaper. Computers, cell phones, cars (before cash for clunkers), LASIK surgery and so on have all gotten better and gotten cheaper. They are also areas of the market where the federal government has not touched. The federal government touched college tuition with college loans. Tuition is going up despite more colleges and universities being open and more online courses being available. With college loans you remove the buyer/seller negotiation. The student pulls out a loan and the university jacks up the prices. They have no resistance because the buyer is not spending their money directly, they are paying by a guaranteed loan. On healthcare, in the 40s if an employer were to pay an employee higher wages they will have to pay higher taxes. To avoid that they paid by healthcare benefits, 100% tax free. A better option for the employee would be to get a higher wage and buy their own insurance. Buying their own insurance would mean a longer time on one thus removing the part of pre-existing conditions. Also they can negotiate insurance prices and get a plan that works for them, so no more women paying for viagra or men paying for contraceptives.....does some of this sound familiar? Instead the employee has either the choice of paying out of pocket for healthcare and thus earning less or getting it from their job. They get it from their job and as a result they get a generic plan that insurance companies know they have a guaranteed customer, thus prices go up. And when that employee goes to another job they are denied insurance due to being older and a pre-existing condition being present. The federal government removed competition and negotiation which led to price increases. Federal welfare is a disaster. What it does is that it says to one group of people, the rich that they are earning too much based off of nothing. So they tax them more. The poor, according to the government says they are earning too little, once again based off of nothing. So they take from those who actually work and develop wealth and give to those that don't. That devalues money. As a result those who actually work demand more money and get it. That is why we are seeing income inequality grow. The top 10% earned 40% of the income but paid 70% of taxes. They are doing not only work for themselves but work for 30% of people in the US. They will demand more and get it making them richer and the poor worse off.
1
+Michael P Those things are not regulated by the government, not at all. You may split hairs and talk about honest advertising, but that covers everything. But they are not regulated by the government at all and are not subsidized by the government at all. If you can't get the fact right than we can't even get to opinions yet. "People need student loans to get through school" Says who? ". Partly because our wages have stagnated because employers stopped giving raises" I showed you why they don't give many raises, plus with decreasing prices we have more disposable income. You never factor that in. " the wealth gap increased and the top ten percent took more of the wealth, " There is always a wealth gap in a healthy economy. Wealth does not equal income. "I hear your theories on healthcare. Show me an example of this happening and working right now." I showed you. LASIK is not touched by the government at all, or insurance companies. It is strictly buyer/seller negotiation. LASIK has improved and gotten cheaper. Healthcare has gotten more expensive. "My business thrives when middle and working class families make more money and are able to save more money." But if your customers were to get more money you will not have enough supply thus you will have to raise prices. "when they stopped getting wage increases" Stop with the wage increase. I told you how you are wrong on that already. Are you even reading what I write? "It is not "based off nothing"" It is though. The market determines what someone is worth, not some figure head called the government. I agree, the middle class is struggling in some ways, you can blame the federal government for that. It has been getting it's hands in more and more things every year, things are not getting better, but you want more of it? " the ten percent getting richer does not benefit me as much as the bottom 10 percent getting richer, let alone the bottom 90." That is not true. Where do you think all you technology and innovation comes from? That middle to lower class guy in his home or that guy in the 10% (the 10% is over $350,000 a years BTW, not millionaires). "A tax on Wall Street would do this country some good." And what do you do when that runs out of money? "Some more socialism without the excess of greed could do some good." We have socialism, those pushing for more now are refusing to work and demand more which creates income inequality.
1