Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Sanders Says He'll Win New Hampshire, Iowa, and the White House" video.

Bernie has little chance of winning. He is too radical. Socialism doesn't work in the large scale.
1
Tim Arthur One, it is debatable if those countries are actually doing better than the US. I, along with others can easily say that the US is doing better. Another is that those 150 million people are spread out over numerous countries. Now if you read what I wrote you will see that I said it doesn't work on the large scale. Those countries have populations that are less than most of our sates. Not a very sound comparison when comparing to the entire USA. Think about it, Denmark has around 5 million people, are you really going to compare it to the USA? Also, you pick the fact that they are socialist countries but ignore the other variables involved in what runs those countries. Denmark, for example, has mandatory military. Why don't you consider that in their success? With that said this is the exact reason why I support state rights. The more local government is the more it represents the people. Socialist policies can work at the state and local level, not at the federal level. So yes Bernie Sanders is radical. He is trying to compare the US to smaller countries. He is trying to force a one size fits all policy in a country of 300 million people. He is a radical and won't win.
1
Somebody Somewhere It isn't clear though. What stat do you want to look at? You can look at almost anything and find that the US is comparable to those countries. Comparable as in within one standard deviation from them if not better. That minute difference is called noise. That noise is due to several reason. You are cherry picking stats and presenting them in a deceptive way to push your propaganda. There is great economic mobility in the US. Everyone in the US has access to education. There is a lot of access to healthcare in the US. You are really being shallow here.
1
Tim Arthur " But that doesn't change the fact that people living in European social democracies have access to rights and luxuries that many Americans can only dream of." You have a very shallow definition of what a right is. Nobody has a right to anyone's services. If you want to make a direct comparison to the US I can easily argue that the US has it better, especially when you factor in all the variables involved. People living in Europe have an inferior university system. Their healthcare system is questionable. Their cost of living is higher. I personally don't like to make direct side by side comparison of the US to European countries. The variables are too great. But to say that they are doing better than the US is being ignorant. What Bernie is pushing for is big-government socialism. We already tried this with FDR. We saw a prolong recession and now a corrupt government. Nothing good comes from it.
1
Henry Shing What does "population per capita" even mean? I have never heard of that. Now if you mean GDP per capita you have to realize that the US also has a lower cost of living. When you factor in that then the US is higher than Denmark.
1
Henry the 9th That is called population density.
1
PerthTowne Bernie is very radical. Keep in mind that "common sense" is a weak phrase to use in any debate. Using it shows that you don't know what you are talking about. I can go point by point showing that Bernie is either one, a radical, or two, misguided, or three just plain stupid.
1
Somebody Somewhere Colleges in the US are very affordable, especially if you consider the payout in the end. The reason for the rising tuition is because of the federal government having numerous loans and grants which increases the consumption rate of college without increasing the amount of product. I work at a university and we are seeing enrollment go up due to grants and loans. Our professors and TAs demanded more pay so they got it but their workload got bigger. Now where does that money come from? You also have to consider that the US has the best university system in the world. I never like to compare one country to another but in this case I do because there isn't any argument. Sure Germany may be free, but in Germany college is only for the elite. Also they don't speak english in germany so foreigners come to the US instead which is why the US has a larger amount of immigrants to come to college. If the federal government were to spend for college (they already do as in grants or loans) then the price of it will go up or the quality will go down. We are seeing that right now with the large enrollment but lack of professors and space at universities. So no, the US can't afford college, that is just basic economics. On healthcare, just because the federal government "provides" it doesn't mean people will get care. Access to healthcare does not equal healthcare. As with college, if paying for college means increasing classroom sizes to 500 students then those who struggle will get lost compared to a classroom size of 30 students (what I had in my college). If paying for healthcare means longer wait times then those who are not healthy get worse. Pushing for more federal government involvement in healthcare will make it worse. If you think you don't have access now wait until you get what Bernie wants, you will really be in bad shape. Never use "common sense" in any form of debate or argument. Saying that phrase shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
1
Danny Sprawka "Higher minimum wage" So killing jobs for those at a disadvantage. "Healthcare for all" Healthcare coverage does not equal healthcare. "Expansion of social security" So draining it even more even though it is running out of money "Benefits for full time workers" So he wants to push for more part time workers. In all I feel Bernie will be a great mayor, or even a governor in a small state. But as president he is a radical that will run this country down to the ground through another great depression. His policies simply won't work at the federal level.
1
Amber Shouse He isn't a democratic socialist because he wants to reduce state rights and centralized government. That weakens the ability of the people to have a strong representation in government and thus weakens democracy. So he is is a pure socialist.
1
Amber Shouse He is pushing for more power to the federal government. He wants to give the fed. more power to regulate, tax, control education, control healthcare, control our infrastructure and spend more. In his "free college" plan the fed. will pay for 3/4 of it. He wants to dismantle state rights and create a more powerful federal government.
1
qpwillie There is no such thing as redistribution of the wealth. Attempting simply destroys wealth.
1
Amber Shouse The federal government wasn't supposed to have the power to tax individuals. It was supposed to tax only the states. Not Wallstreet or the rich or businesses, just states. The reason why is that the federal government was not supposed to have so much power. Giving it power gives it the ability to be bought by those with money. The reason why taxes benefit those people (which is debatable) is because the rich bought out the power the federal government has. If the federal government has no power to begin with it can't be bought. If Sanders wants to help out the people it would do away with federal taxes and go back to a tax on the states. It will do away with regulations and leave it up to the states. Bernie is supporting ideas that just compound our problems. If public colleges are free they will become worse in quality.
1
Amber Shouse As I said you can't compare the US to other countries. Those European countries have populations less than most of our states. Their diversity it small compared to the US. Also if you were to look at all those stats. you would see that the US is within a standard deviation of all those European countries. The difference at that point is called noise. You are being shallow saying that the US is doing worse than those countries because due to several variables you can't. You need to learn how to do statistical analysis better.
1
zxcvbnmjhgfdsa1 Last time I got a raise? Last year. How am I going to get a house? Get a skilled job and pay for it. I admit changes can be made but only at the state level. Most of our problems stem from the fed.
1
***** Poll numbers showing that only 8% of democrats will vote for him and fell that 72% of democrats feel that Clinton has a better chance of winning the presidency over the republicans are not gaining at all (that is according to a recent CNN poll). He has no chance. His only chance is winning the primaries due to republicans voting for him in the primary putting a weak candidate up against the republican nominee. It doesn't matter if SS and medicare are popular. Slavery was popular at one time, we abolished that. What matters is what is right. SS and medicare hinder economic growth and gives too much power to the federal government compounding our problems. It is actually both scary and sad that we are willing to be this dependent on the federal government. Socialist is a bad work because socialism on the large scale does not work. Liberals today are very oppressive and pretty much fascists which is why they are look at as bad. Where Bernie is radical? Free college, will destroy our current university system. We already are short handed professors which is increasing classroom sizes and lower quality. Single Payer healthcare, will increase healthcare cost or lower quality. We are seeing that with the ACA now. It is simple economics when you increase consumption without increasing productivity that prices will go up. Higher taxes, the rich already pay most of the taxes. Increasing it more will increase the income gap even more. The min. wage, it is already too high. We have youth unemployment at an all time high. There isn't one single good reason to even having a min. wage (I say that as a moderate BTW) but he wants to increase it to a level that will hurt job opportunities for those who need them the most. He supports spying on what he considers to be hate groups. Look up the video of him talking about the confederate flag. He supports the FBI spying on what he considers to be hate groups, he said it himself. He is not a socialist, he is pretty much a communist. I can list more, but you told me to list just 5 so I will.
1
***** "Right wing terrorism is a huge problem in this country" Already I can see that you are very myopic and that almost anything I say most likely won't change your stance. I don't come out and claim that those on the left are committing treason (even though I can very easily come up as an argument in why they are), but you come out with the whole "right wing terrorism" game, real nice. Anyway, I will attempt to educate you. China has a lot less regulations that the US. Let us look at lanthanides for example. They are used in research and production of solar cells. China has corned the market in them and raised their prices then fold. That is because due to low regulations they can open mines quickly and mine them. In the US it takes around 10 years to open a new mine to mine them thus we don't have the resources thus China has raised the prices. That is just one of several examples of lower regulations. So no, they don't have a bigger government in terms of economic regulations. Even with that China still has problems. There isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. "Free college" will make our current university system worse. Higher taxes scare those with money away. And ISIS are not Americans, they are a foreign enemy, that is the difference. I gave several policies where Bernie is a radical. Very few of those on the right deny climate change, and the ones that do I call out and they don't get elected as president. Treating children as women? What? It is the democrats that want feel that women are inferior and feel that they need the federal government's help to succeed. And what do you mean by "treating children as women"? Who calls immigrants murderers and rapists? No republican presidential candidate I know. You are making things up.
1
***** It doesn't matter who agrees with him or not, they are radical policies that simply won't work. The fact is that in the US bureaucrats in Washington can't do anything. That is why you see policy get passed faster at the local level is managed better. That is why we have to push for smaller more local government. International law? Really. I can point out where Obama violated the constitution that he swore to uphold. That is treason, not going to war which was passed by congress and is constitutional. The issue on climate change is very gray. It is happening, has been for over 4 billion years. How much man is playing a role and is it really bad is the question. The majority of scientist even admit that (as I read in a Physics Today article). What is radical is what democrats try to do is play science when they know nothing about it. As a scientist myself (I am pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry) I can say I have experience in this. Only one person said "legitimate rape", again, not a presidential candidate. Mean while the democrats pass violence against women act, even though domestic violence is already illegal (and makes women look inferior to men in them needing a special law), equal pay for equal work, a myth that has been debunked a lot, and makes women look inferior in that they are unable to get more money unless the government helps. And don't include me in republicans, I am a moderate myself. I am not criticizing your mistakes, I was asking for clarifications. I make several mistakes on youtube comments. If you read mine they are filled with grammar errors and such. I wasn't trying to make a non existent point, I was asking for clarifications.
1
***** The physics today article was in a magazine in my lab. If it was on the internet it will be a hard piece to find. If I get around to it I can find the magazine and give you the issue. Bernie is radical, that is a pure fact. He has always pushed for far left policies where others bring them up but never endorses them at the level he does. I am not portraying that domestic violence laws are bad, I am saying that law was redundant. Every state had laws against domestic violence already. Plus the name, violence against women? What about violence against people? Why just towards women? What about men. What is wrong with having a law for equal pay for equal work? Well one, besides that point being debunked numerous times, what is work? In the market it is based off of several things. You can't clearly define it. That makes the law very flawed. Why is there income inequality? Because we have a system where the rich still pay most of the taxes, and we have people to who get more money then compared to the wealth they create. That means we have people who simply don't work up to their ability but still get paid. That is creating income inequality because the value of the dollar goes down causing those who actually produce wealth demanding more money. On trickle down, that is a political term. But if you want to discuss that due to more wealth creation people are doing better. Look at computers, cars, smart phones, high speed internet, dishwashers etc. They are better and more affordable. The middle class has gotten better as well. On top of that they have more disposable income. So to say that wages are stagnated is not that true if at all. I drive a better car than someone who is rich did in the 50s and 60s, most likely even the 70s and 80s. I have a smart phone, so do those on welfare, people who were rich didn't in the 70s, and only the super rich did in the 80s. We are better off, what is holding us back is an unfair tax policy attacking the rich and federal regulations on businesses.
1
KillTheMethod All the private sector can do is offer you a job and a good/service. It can't control you. The government can though. The government can use threat of incarceration to get it's way. So you have it the other way around, the public sector is a large totalitarian institution (or can be if we don't control it), the private sector involves participation. That is because if no one is willing to work for a business or buy fro them they cease to exist. The government will exist and will use force to get you to give them you money and use their product. Public healthcare with the removal of private healthcare is not competitive.
1
KillTheMethod But the government wouldn't just use force to obtain all the resources? You are messed up in your thought process.
1
Ryan Shaffer Those socialist countries have small populations, smaller than most of our states. It is easier to establish a democracy and have a government that works for the people with such a small population. In the US we have over 300 million people. We are basically 50 countries in one. You are not represented at all at the federal level. Why would someone like a Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi care what I think? I don't vote for them. Same goes for most people in the country. But yet people see to have no problem giving people that don't represent them more power. There is nothing inherently wrong with social programs, you just have to keep government in control to make sure it remains the servants. You do that with keeping government local. You are complaining about what is happening now with social security. Well, vote in a politician that will change it. Oh, you can only vote in for a handful of politicians. You won't be able to change it. That is why the Sweden model won't work i the US.
1
Ryan Shaffer Exactly, but they won't.
1