Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Face the Nation" channel.

  1. She doesn't know how unemployment is calculated. She is an idiot.
    23
  2. Compare to FL to CA, both states did a different approach, are basically equal in population density, weather, etc. and ended up with similar results.
    17
  3.  @darrkstarg  deaths per million FL: 1437 CA: 1318 US average: 1588 A difference of less than 100 is similar. Do you know how statistics work?
    12
  4.  @ashyhusky4130  we are adults. If you want to hide in fear you have that right. Others are going to live life. Government cannot protect you from all dangers in life, you need to take care of yourself and not expect government to do it for you.
    8
  5.  erin smith  true, FL does have an older population which adds to my argument that one, there are so many variables and two, do the lockdowns and masks every work? Comparing the two states of FL and CA and the death rate difference is less than 100? Now consider how many people who suffered because of the lockdowns and bad economy.
    7
  6.  @joepenfield  life is full of dangers. I drove my car today to drop off my rent, I put others in danger doing that. So should we ban driving?
    7
  7.  @Syrnian  ok, what about NY and NJ who are doing worse than SD? You have that as well. Also factor in the damage done due to a bad economy as well.
    4
  8.  @fieldlab4  how is FL lying? Any evidence of that. "but fatality rate among infected has to do with hospital access, capacity and quality of care." That is part of it, but that is with any disease. And SD may be 8th, but what about NJ and NY who had strict lockdowns and still do?
    4
  9. @American Pie do you know how per capita works? And via known cases the average death rate is 1.7%, SD is at 1.6%, so they are beating the US average. And again, that is of known cases.
    4
  10.  @Mytro8533  to start, we are talking about putting others in danger. A seat belt is to keep me safe. Next, there comes a limit. This is studied in economics all the time. In driving there are 40,000 who die a year in the US due to traffic accidents. Capping speed limits to 15 MPH will make that number to be zero. But the drawback is that productivity will drop a lot doing more damage. Same with this virus. Shutting down the economy and businesses may have slowed down the spread (no evidence that it does), but think about how many lost their businesses and jobs now.
    4
  11. @American Pie you are always doing things at the expense of others. When you drive you place others at risk.
    4
  12.  Umanfly  one has to be fair at this point. Why did states like NJ and NY do strict lockdowns have a higher death rate? The reality is that there are varying results. FL and CA are very similar all around as states, had different approaches towards this virus but ended up with similar results. So it begs the question if lockdowns even work.
    4
  13. MrKgb63, if you make college "tuition free" colleges will raise their prices costing the government more money. Also, books, rent, etc. will cost more. The student loan program caused college tuition so sky rocket.
    3
  14.  common since  CDC numbers of deaths per 100,000 ND: 189 SD: 213 AZ: 219 MS: 224 NJ: 261 CT: 213 RI: 236 MA: 231 NYC: 349 Those are CDC numbers. SD is not the worse, and ND is nowhere near the worse. In cases you are correct, ND and SD are at the top, but that goes to show that they also have a higher survival rate. Also, both ND and SD have flattened their curves. Their active cases are low.
    3
  15. Who? If you are talking about Walmart you have to realize that those Sam's Clubs were planned to be closed down months ago. Online sales are overtaking retail thus those stores were going to close. Those workers received 2 months pay which gives them plenty of time to find new jobs.
    3
  16. Bernie Sanders, all rhetoric and no specifics. We have a lot of foolish people in our country.
    2
  17. Burlington has 42,000 people, that is far from being a "city". It has no industry making it very easy to manage. Burlington also has a negative growth rate. But hey, leave out facts that don't suit your ideas. Bernie is an economic illiterate.
    2
  18.  @joepenfield  they are similar. In the US it is around 1500 per million. When you are talking about a difference of less than 100 when you have numbers in the thousands, that is similar. Again, do you know how statistics work?
    2
  19.  @joepenfield  doing a quick calculation the standard deviation in the US of deaths per million is around 500. So a difference of less than 100 between two states is nothing.
    2
  20.  @Syrnian  yeah, it was quick and dirty from copying and pasting in excel. Either way, a standard deviation of around 500 means two states being around 100 difference are seeing similar results.
    2
  21. High case count but also a high recovery rate. Also, their active cases are now around 1/10 compared to their peak. Them, and ND have literally flatten the curve and beat covid. We should follow what she did to get out of covid.
    2
  22. She opposes the stimulus package.
    2
  23. She doesn't know how unemployment is calculated. And why is she in Kansas? She does not represent those people.
    2
  24. Several flaws here. On, she, herself, cannot do that. You have different branches of government. Next, how far are you willing to go with the "saving my life"? Why not force people to wear helmets? You bring up seat belts, going with driving there are still 40,000 deaths a year due to traffic accidents. Capping speed limits to 15 MPH will make that number to be zero. But productivity will drop which will cause more damage. Now take this virus, shutting down businesses may have slowed down the spread but one, there is no hard evidence for that. Many states had strict lockdowns with terrible results. Next, shutting down the businesses did a lot of harm to the economy and individuals as well. Also, in seat belt laws, like all laws, it took an act of congress, many elected officials working on it and there is a reason why seat belt laws exist. It isn't so much to protect you. It is that in all 50 states car insurance is required and a part of keeping car insurance cost low is to require seat belts to be worn. It isn't arbitrary as say shutting down businesses due to a virus.
    2
  25.  @rrdream2400  then by that logic South Dakota should have a lot of flu cases as well. So what gives?
    2
  26.  @theepiccrafthouse9760  many states have kids in schools.
    2
  27. Hey There, Norway has lower corporate taxes, a free market in employer/employee relationship, no min. wage, 5 million people, higher oil productivity, and lower obesity rate. But hey, ignore all of that and just call a country whatever you want I guess.
    2
  28. SodaBoy628, those polls are unreliable. Bernie was never subjected to the attacks from the RNC. The RNC wanted Bernie to beat Clinton as he is a much easier candidate. People are not going to vote for a socialist who defended Castro, never had a real job in his life, stole electricity from his neighbor and wants to raise everyone's taxes. If Bernie runs against Trump in 2020 Bernie might win 10 states at best.
    2
  29. The same polls said Clinton was going to win. Polls are unreliable for several reasons. 80% of voters in Colorado said no to universal healthcare. Why? Because people saw that taxes were going to go up. People on the midwest want lower taxes, not higher.
    2
  30. +Damion Moore People have asked him policy questions in the past and he fell apart. Simply look at his interview with Bill Maher.
    1
  31. +realscummy Even those on the right were applauding Maher after his interview with Bernie. Bernie looked like a fool and could not answer any questions. Bernie has been in federal office for how long? Almost 3 decades? And he can't come up with a number? He should have this done by now.
    1
  32. +Keith Barrett I have read and heard of what he says. He has no specifics. Pick any economic policy of Bernie Sanders and I can break down how he one, has no specifics, and two that particular policy won't work.
    1
  33. +Odin_NtR I agree the current tax system is unfair. You want to fix it? Go back to a tax on the states and remove all other federal taxes. It worked fine for almost 140 years. Bernie is a career politician, that is another problem I have with him. He is concerned about winning which is why he has no specifics and he dodges questions dealing with them.
    1
  34. +flyingboat Considering he oversaw the slowest recovery ever after a recession and one of the worst times we have had economically in this country it is safe to say I am right. I bet you think David Shula was a great NFL coach as well.
    1
  35. +Shawn Dupuis He "free college" he says will raise $47 billion at the federal level with the states covering $23 billion. The states won't be able to do it with a stock market increase. So no, it won't bring in $300 billion. Plus the current student loan debt is $1.2 trillion, that is much larger than $300 billion. FICA taxes are a reason why wages are low. Eliminating the cap won't do anything. And expanding medicare how? Which what money? Taxing the rich an extra tenth of a percent won't cover it. Bernie has no detail plans. The number one problem with Bernie is that he wants to add more layers of government. Every problem we have in this country are related to the federal government touching it in some ways. Adding more government will make it worse. That has been proven. High healthcare cost and stagnate wages are due to the FICA tax. Expanding it will make it worse. High college tuition is due to the federal government getting involved with college loans. Making it "free" will make it worse. How does Bernie plan on fixing the problem of limited professors, limited dorms, limited classrooms etc.? He doesn't have a plan. Bernie never ran Vermont. He was a mayor and then a senator. He was never governor. Even with that VT has high cost of living, low home ownership rate, and has one of the highest rates of drug use in the country.
    1
  36. +Shawn Dupuis No, I will demand that my loans be paid off now along with others. The point is that the money is not there, even from Bernie's own numbers. He never said $300 billion, nobody but you have. Bernie is bad at math but you seem to be worse. Even with that how do you address the issue of lack of dorms, lack of classrooms, lack of professors? How will healthcare spending decrease? You never explained that. My overall problem with Bernie is that if you take any one of his policies and break they down they simply won't work. It is start to come out with you. You say remove the cap on SS. Ok, how are you going to stop employers from stop giving out raises? FICA taxes are the reason why wages are stagnated in several ways. How are you going to prevent those with money from moving money to prevent paying that higher tax? It is easy to change payroll? And with healthcare, how are you going to prevent the rising cost? Same with college education, you are starting to fall apart in your argument. You even realize that there are not many professors and classrooms. Plus you $300 billion is made up. Breaking down every single one of Bernie's policies shows that it won't work. The money is not there to raise $300 billion in taxes, that is simple math. The reason why healthcare is so expensive is from the government.
    1
  37. +Shawn Dupuis If everyone entitled to a "free college" then my loans, along with others should be paid off. That will become an issue. I have a degree, so do several other with loans. They are people that showed they had the ability to go to college and finished. So they deserve their right to a free college. If other people are going to get it so do ones that already got it. That will get brought up and it will become an issue. Or do you not feel that everyone who is capable deserves a "free education"? On people getting raises, SS is paid for by a payroll tax. When a company pays higher wages it has to pay a payroll tax. If you remove a cap than companies will pay less. It is that simple. That is why there was a cap to begin with, companies pay into FICA taxes as well. Higher taxes will mean lower wages to avoid the higher rate. Who has a detail plan? Not many people yet. The problem is that Bernie's plans are too radical as is even without details. I can take every single one of his economic policies and show how it simply won't work. Other politicians you currently can't do that with. That shows the level of extreme Bernie is. Healthcare is more expensive because of the federal government. How come other areas of the market that were not touched by the federal government (and when I say that I mean whose funding was strongly effected by the federal government) have gotten better and cheaper? There is a very strong correlation there. You may be done wasting time with me which is fine. At times I hope Bernie wins. It is like a kid touching a hot pan and learning not to touch it again. After Bernie gets elected and things get worse maybe people will learn how poor he is. But FDR was elected 4 times despite his policies led us through the worse economic times this country has seen. People can be not so bright at times.
    1
  38. +Shawn Dupuis I heard what you said. You said a tax on wallstreet will raise $300 billion. Not even Bernie says that. He says $47 billion. Where do you get your numbers from?
    1
  39. +flyingboat Public schools, police and fire department are all locally funded. Something even Milton Friedman supported.
    1
  40. +flyingboat And FDR was one of the worst presidents ever. Watch the video I linked, it is very interesting.
    1
  41. +flyingboat My ideas are radical? But not Bernie Sanders? We literally can't afford his ideas just like we could not afford FDR's policies. Under FDR we saw the slowest recovery ever from a recession. We saw massive spending and debt increase. It eventually took the war, and his death to lead to recovery from the recession. Anyone who thinks that FDR is one of the best is wrong. FDR led us through a slow recovery, threaten to stack the courts to violate the constitution, and expanded the size of the federal government which created the problems we have now. Yes what you listed is socialist. As Milton Friedman said there is a role for government, but you have to keep it as local as possible to see that you are getting your moneys worth. At the federal level you feel that you are spending someone else's money, but they are spending yours as well. At the federal level you have more waste. And at the federal level you have less control of the government thus you have more chances for corruption.
    1
  42. +flyingboat Now think about what you said. You called me a radical when I simply suggest we follow what the founding fathers wanted, a limited government and state rights. Meanwhile you want the federal government to control healthcare, to control college education (when it does not even control K-12 education), to raise the min. wage over 100% of what it currently is, to pay for over $1 trillion dollars for rebuilding infrastructure which means what? (and also that money does not exist). But yet I am radical, not Bernie......really?
    1
  43. +Zak Loveland What infrastructure needs to be rebuilt? And is there a demand for it? That is what I am asking. We can build building left and right, but if nobody demands it we might as well dig holes in the ground.
    1
  44. +flyingboat 1. My ideas are not opinions. But besides that point, I find it ironic that you call my ideas radical when you support Bernie who wants, a $15/hr min. wage, over twice the current, "free" college when the federal government does not even control K-12 education, "free" healthcare, infrastructure spending that off of Bernie's own numbers we can't afford on top of other policies of Bernie that expand the federal government. Under FDR we saw a slow recovery. Every other recession took around 5 years to recover from except for two, the current one now and the great depression. Under FDR we saw a slow recovery and every text book knows that which is why it was called the Great Depression. Half of the founding fathers did not want to expand the federal government in 1787. Only Alexander Hamilton wanted it. That is why after the War of 1812 when a federal income tax was suggested it was denied. 2. Bernie Sanders is not moderate. He supports massive expansion of the federal government. And when Bernie is gone what is going to prevent future politicians from taking advantage of the new power the federal government has? That is the exact same problem FDR created. That is the worse part about Bernie Sanders. Never mind that he does no have any specifics on his policies, he wants to create a system that future politicians can take advantage of. You have yet to present facts, all you present is rhetoric. How is Bernie a "moderate"? He supports expansion of the federal government. That is the complete opposite of a "moderate" That is similar to someone who wants no government, it is just on the other side. "My advice? Use actual evidence to support your claims in the future instead of citing crazy conspiracy videos" Says the person who doesn't cite anything as well and feels Bernie is a "moderate".
    1
  45. +bob ewell What textbook did he cite? I don't see it. Just saying something is textbook is not citing a textbook. People like my comments, others don't. I learned that those who don't aren't too bright.
    1
  46. +realscummy I know they are socialized. I really don't have a problem with socialism in the US as long as it is done at the state and local level.
    1
  47. +grvonny It is my money as well. I say you should not get a dime.
    1
  48. +grvonny Typical Bernie Sanders supporter response.
    1
  49. +grvonny Ok, pick any economic policy of Bernie Sanders and I can break down how it simply won't work.
    1
  50. +SodaBoy628 Nobody paid that 90% rate. If I were rich I would love to have that rate from the 50s and 60s with 50s and 60s technology and deductions.
    1