Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Senator Bernie Sanders" channel.

  1. Dan Harris Bernie mentions a problem but his approach is completely off. One, he supports the min. wage which is known for killing jobs for the youth. Remove the min. wage and youth unemployment goes down. Next, I watched like half the video and had enough of Bernie and his shallow talking points, but he said that we have more people in jail than China, a communist country. That isn't out of the norm. In communist countries you are basically imprisoned and if you do end up in jail you are predicted to have a short lifetime. So what he said there was deceptive. Typical Bernie.
    1
  2. That is deceptive, what is work?  40 hours a week sitting at a desk is something you can't compare to 40 hours a week working in a factory or some other physical labor job.  Just saying that X amount of people are working over 40 hours a week is leaving out a lot, but as usual comrade Sanders will run with that stat as if it means something.
    1
  3. Scott Haskin It is easier to spend other people's money.
    1
  4. justin burns I do. The reason why is because we can prevent corruption with state rights and limited federal government. Thus the complete opposite of what Bernie wants.
    1
  5. FlashOfThunder No they don't.
    1
  6. Fiasco Linguini Small government means the ability to control government. Too much government is just as bad as on government.
    1
  7. Fiasco Linguini The GOP wants the states to have their own EPAs. The federal government isn't supposed to have such a program. It follows the idea of state rights and checks and balances. You are so concerned about your precious EPA, that barely scratches the budget of the federal government, while the federal government continues to bail out businesses and receives bribes from corporations. The GOP wants to get rid of the bribery, but you have to limit the federal government. That means get rid of the federal EPA.
    1
  8. Fiasco Linguini Corruption at the local level is almost a null situation. People have more control of local governments and people can move to another state and remain a US citizen if the local government doesn't work for them. Democrats wanting a larger federal government is a means for them to have others do all the work and pay for democrat voters laziness.
    1
  9. Fiasco Linguini Corruption at the state level is small and is stopped easily. That is why no one hears about it, it is almost non-existent. What is your point on the pipeline? I actually don't watch Fox News and I also don't see how this relates to anything. I mean, I have to ask you, how much Fox News do you watch? Or do you just base your criticism of it by what others say. " have you ever heard a Democrat or any Liberal say "we need bigger government?" " Yes, especially out of Bernie Sanders' mouth. "Liberals want Accountability and Transparency for everyone who wields power, government or corporate." How do you hold a government accountable when you can only vote for, at best a handful of the representatives? "Government, of the people by the people and for the people, is not an evil thing." I agree, you get that with smaller more local government. You know how many times I voted for Bernie Sanders? 0. He doesn't represent me, he lives all the way across the country. So he isn't for me. He is for Vermont, but I don't want him controlling my life. I bet you feel the same about a Ted Cruz or Mitch McConnell. "It is frustrating to see you fight on behalf of such evil, and you probably aren't even getting paid for it." I am fighting against the problem. You are blindly following Bernie and you are more that willing to give him power but then complain when others at the federal level, those you can't even vote for misuse it.
    1
  10. Fiasco Linguini Money is free speech, how is it not? It is a form of expression. It is hard to agree to disagree when you can't even get a simple fact right, let alone a difference in opinion.
    1
  11. +Reina Ferraris Because Obamacare is a bad law. When the republicans take over the whitehouse then it will be repealed.
    1
  12. +judyleasugar97 Individual states can set up their own healthcare reform like the constitution was designed to do. Obamacare is worse than what we have. I did just wake up. I slept very well last night.
    1
  13. +judyleasugar97 And those governors were elected by the people of those states. If they wanted to change that they can either 1. Vote them out 2. Move to another state and remain a US citizen The fact that they vote them in and keep them says that they like what those governors are doing and want to keep them.
    1
  14. +judyleasugar97 One, gerrymandering is a lame excuse. Two, it doesn't effect state and local elections.
    1
  15. +judyleasugar97 Gerrymandering is a poor excuse. How about politicians try to convince people to vote for them better.
    1
  16. Get rid of the min. wage and youth employment goes up.  Raise the min. wage (which Bernie supports) then youth employment goes down.  This is as simple as it gets.
    1
  17. Thank you Comrade Sanders.  To everyone who supports Sanders and wants him  as president might as well move to Cuba or Venezuela, it would be the same thing.
    1
  18. How many people doing these long hours do so because it is their career?  I work well over 40 hours a week, I do so because it is my career and have pride in it.  Include that in the poll and you will get a different response.
    1
  19. mahal3680 I work because one, I like my job, and two, I plan to be successful. I am pursuing my PhD. Like a small business owner (who basically work 24/7) we work constantly. But it pays of in the end. My problem here is that people feel they are entitled. That if they just work 40 hours a week they should be fine. Life doesn't work that way. Life is work. What is funny is that those same people complain when things don't work out their way. There is a reason why. I remember a time when I was working my low wage job and I volunteered to come in and get work done. Due to me working beyond what was expected I have became successful. There was one time we had a worker who usually worked 8-3 on Saturday day shift. He had to do something at noon. Well, the person he asked to fill in for him said they would come in at 10:30 instead of the whole shift. I asked the person why and they said "well, I at least have a life. I like to hang out with friends on Friday night and sleep in." Basically translated to "I enjoy being lazy and will avoid work at all cost." That person still works a low wage job 10 years later. Times like that are all too common. Look at successful people, they work beyond what is expected. I was working 40 hours a week when I was only contracted to 20. That hard works eventually pays off. On college being expensive, it is because of federal government grants and loans. There are still cheap forms of college and it still pays off in the end if you do actual work. Socialism on the large scale is bad. It hinders economic growth and compounds our problems. It is what creates the income gap we currently have. It simply won't work. And you definition of a "fair chance" is subjective. If socialism were to ever expand than expect more problems in the US than we currently have.
    1
  20. Dan Underwood One has to find the balance of job and family. I personally don't have a family so I have no problem spending time at work. I know others that do and they find that balance. If you work at a job that does not understand your situation with your family then you need to find a new job. Anyway, how much time do you think one should spend with a family? I agree one should put aside time but how much? One way to help the situation is to eliminate OT laws. If someone works 60 hours one week and only 20 the next that would mean a lot of work one week but more time for family the next.
    1
  21. Dan Underwood The problem we have in this country is that we have gone away from state rights and gone to far in allowing the federal government in having power. You just complained about capitalism, I never supported just pure capitalism. Having some social programs is good. But those programs need to be left up to the states and local government. The reason why is that at that level they are managed better and people can see if they are actually work it and easily change it. When you go to the federal level you lose that ability to control the government or see if the program works, thus you go to the next problem, too much government. Too much government is just as bad as no government, remember that. What I am getting at is that if you or your wife or anyone loses their job then I support a state or local program that helps you out until you get a job. At the federal level I don't. As for 12 weeks paternity leaev, one, that is a long time. Another, you really can't compare us to other countries, the variables are too great. The have problems as well as in higher cost of living for example. But businesses don't offer paternity leave or vacation time because they simply cant' afford it. If at the state and local level it decides to have such a program the great. If it works then great. If not then it can be changed. But at the federal level it simply can't work, and forcing businesses to pay is not smart. The problem with your idea of spending a lot of time with family is that you create a society that will only work on a volunteer basis. If I had a family they simply could not come to my job as they are not trained to be around the equipment I use. Same with the job my dad works. As for OT laws, on average the US citizen works 34.4 hours a week. Feeling entitled is not the way to go.
    1
  22. Dan Underwood And that is why I support state rights, what may look like a state not helping out their citizens to you is exactly what those citizens want. The is the beauty of it. Who are you to say how the citizens of a state are to run their government? At the state and local level one is able to see if the tax dollars are being invested back into the community. That is the other beauty of state rights. Milton Friedman explains that well in the video on youtube called "Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups" "governments that are right wing.  The people who live in their state will see their benefits cut or eliminated completely.  What about those people? " If that is what the people in that area want then who are you to change their ways? There are limitations in the government as listed in the constitution, but that is it. I live in a state of zero income tax, but who am I to tell other states they should live like that? "This is one reason amerika as compared to the rest of the world is lagging dead last. " We are actually not dead last, with a proper statistical analysis one can see that one, you really can't compare the US to other countries, and two, when you do compare you see that the US is on par with other countries. You can't compare because other countries have populations that are smaller than most of our states. We have a larger diversity than those other countries. We have so many different societies and a different history. We have a different economy. You simply can't compare. It is like compare Bishop Gorman High School Football to the Dallas Cowboys. If you want to compare the US is number 2 in GDP per capita if cost of living is consider, so we do make more money. Healthcare? We are arguably better. College? We have the best university system in the world. So while it is "free" in other countries, what you get is inferior compared to the US. The min. wage? The min. wage is actually outpacing productivity. That is why prices are going up along with teenage unemployment going up. There isn't one single good reason to even have a min. wage. The min. wage is contributing to higher prices. And saying that 85% of men work over 40 hours is deceptive. How many are doing that in factory work? The economy changed. Work is not a physically demanding anymore. 40 hours a week now is easier than in the past. So basically saying that 85% of men work over 40 hours a week is shallow. "Yes I am entitled to get something for my tax money besides  a  war machine killing brown skinned kids for capitalism and greedy corporatist politicians killing our kids here for capitalism." You can change that at the local level. If I had a kid I will work hard to see to it that they have a better life than me. My dad did that. He worked night shift and I hardly saw him as a kid. But he provided us with a home, money to do extracurricular activities, proper food and so on. We were poor but we got better because of his hard work. I was able to go to college along with my 2 siblings. They both got their MBAs and I am working on my PhD. My dad didn't get his college degree until he was 36. Because of him I am better than he was, and because of his dad he was better than his dad. I irritates me when we have entitled people. And that is not to say he didn't have any time to spend with us, he did, but it all requires work.
    1
  23. The top 5 states in unemployment have a min. wage above the federal.  I, like Bernie Sanders, can pull up stats as well.  Vermont is second in population behind WY which also has a low unemployment rate. I just love Sander's arguments. Decent wages, fair share, starvation wages. Really?  This guy is suppose to be leading our country?  I guess I should go to my professors and demand a decent grade.  When they give me an F that would be decent to them.  This guy is pathetic.
    1
  24. David Adame Well one you have to understand what money is.  Money isn't some finite resource.  Money is just some arbitrary form of trade that only gains value when people agree to trade with it to develop capital. That CEO of Walmart is making as much as they do because they create that much capital.  The workers of walmart make as much as they do because that is how much capital they create.  There are several other factors involved in pay but the main one is the amount of capital they create. Next you have to realize that jobs come and go, yes some jobs are lost but there are a lot of high skilled/high wages jobs available that people are not filling because they don't have the training.  So you met someone with a masters working at Walmart?  A masters in what?  History?  With a pharmacy degree you are guaranteed a job that pays at least $60,000 starting off.  Artificially paying low wages to people who produce little capital doesn't help the economy.  We need to progress and push people to take on challenging jobs, that is how we grow as a society and have grown as a country.  When the tractor replace the farm workers they developed another skill and worked in the factory.  It is the evolution of the economy. 
    1
  25. David Adame A lot of jobs disappear because of better technology.  An AC repair man is finding less work due to AC's being better.  Same with plumbing and other trade jobs. You are talking about wanting to work a certain job, you can put yourself in a position to have a high paying job, work part time and work a low paying job that you enjoy part time.  You don't always get what you want.  You say America is the laughing stock of the world, I doubt that.  We do lead the world in healthcare research and innovation and technology research and innovation.  We are near the top in productivity.  We are very successful. Walmart is successful due to the business model they run.  They pay competitive wages for retail.  The reason why they don't get paid more is because they simply can't afford it.  Your utopia of where people can do what they want and live and do well at the same time just isn't possible.  You have to create capital and if you don't create capital as a society than you don't have progress. 
    1
  26. David Adame Pay hasn't been going down through years.  In the 1930s a record player was over $200.  You had to leave it in your home.  For $200 I bought a smart phone that I can play music on through the internet.  You have to look beyond wages.  Wages have been going up and prices are dropping.  People are living better than in the past.  It is great that you want things to be better, but you have to realize you spoiled. 
    1
  27. David Adame There are a lot more than CEO wages going up.  There are some jobs that are being archaic and others are not being filled.  We have high skilled jobs that are simply not being filled due to people not being qualified for them.  Instead of subsidizing lower income individuals who produce little capital we should be pushing people to develop more skills.  That is how society gets better. When the tractor replaced farmers we didn't just give money to those individuals losing jobs, they became trained in another skill and worked another job that earned them more.  And once again, wages are not the full story, purchasing power is.  Your goods and services are better now, and cheaper, than they were in the past.  You are able to type on a computer now where in the 90s you probably couldn't. 
    1
  28. David Adame Jobs disappear, it is a fact.  You mention cashiers, self check-outs replaced some of those.  Due to technology and innovation warehouse jobs are disappearing. My dad worked at a battery factory, the place was booming in the 90s, it recently closed and when it did they downsized to 1/4 of what they use to have.  A reason why is that now a lot of appliances have batteries on board that are rechargeable.  Demand for batteries have dropped.  It happens.  The factory closed so he got another job. More people may be graduating with a college degree but a degree in what?  History?  Art?  Business?  Not really skillful degrees.  Graduating more students with college degrees doesn't matter if they still don't have the skills. Your mindset on Reagan is wrong, the median income went up under him and continued to do so until the mid 2000s and when the recession hit the median income dropped  and is still low.  So saying that wages have dropped due to Reagan is a lie.  What we do see is the evolution of the economy.  Certain jobs will disappear, a problem is that actions by the federal government is increasing it.  We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world driving out businesses, we have too many regulations driving out businesses and killing jobs.  The federal government messing with the market is creating this problem as well.  We have to let the market adjust itself, with the federal government playing a role it is making it worse. 
    1
  29. bloodandwinearered Obama was better at hiding his radical views, Sanders is too open about them. He has no chance of winning.
    1
  30. Louis Wu I don't ally with corporations. Sanders is a radical in that he wants to expand the size of the federal government which is the main cause to our problems. He is basically being a fascist. At this point in time he is a step below FDR who threaten to pack the courts until he got his way.
    1
  31. Louis Wu Plus his policies simply won't work.
    1
  32. Robert Reich doesn't know the difference between income and wealth.  He is a partisan hack.
    1
  33. Logic & Reason You don't have a right to other people's property and services.
    1
  34. Dan Harris Democracy died when FDR became president and Bernie will just continue to kick the dead horse.
    1
  35. Eric Cartman It was about state rights. Yes slavery was involved but southern states didn't want a federal government overreaching on their powers and trampling on state rights. This was still a time where people still strongly followed the constitution and wouldn't allow the creation of a federal income tax. They still pushed for state rights. P.S. Learn history.
    1
  36. Bernie says a legit problem, youth unemployment is high.  But he gives no real solution.  The only real solution is to get rid of the min. wage.  But Bernie wants to raise it to obscene amounts. This is a classic case of the government creating a problem and then trying to expand to "fix" their mess.
    1
  37. Andi Amador Only around 2% of those on min. wage are fulltime workers. Around 20% of those who are in poverty don't work. Around half of those who do work and are in poverty make over $10/hr. The idea that those poverty are earning the min. wage is completely false when over 20% don't even have a job and over half earn above $10/hr. To say that businesses will pay less if false as well. Less than 5% earn at or below the min. wage. Around 50% of those who earn a min. wage get a raise within a year. Business already pay more than the min. wage. But they don't pay more than that for one simple reason, they can't afford it. There are other things you said that were wrong as well. Wages have not stagnated. You have the right to pursue happiness, you are not guaranteed it.
    1
  38. Rt Gall People get replaced by new min. wage workers because those earning those low wages are short term workers. They leave for another high paying job and then get replaced. Only around 2% of min. wage workers work full time. They are short term, temporary workers and it should be that way. Why do you want people trying to make a career out of low wage jobs?
    1
  39. Rt Gall Great, you are one business. My small business I worked for never did that. They kept their workers there employed even after over 20 years.
    1
  40. Rt Gall Between 9 to 10 per hour.
    1
  41. Bernie Sanders and people who support him need to really learn what wealth really is.  There will always be wealth inequality, it is actually good for society.  Not everyone desires to own a business.  Look at the wealth of a home owner compared to a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person simply does not have much wealth.    In income inequality we have it because we have people who simply refuse to work at the best of their ability.  People who speak of wealth inequality and compare it to income inequality simply don't know what they are talking about. In all Bernie is once again showing he has no clue what he is talking about.
    1
  42. +Bread Canful Wealth inequality is actually good for a society. The reason why we have wealth inequality is because for the average person beyond owning a home they simply don't have much wealth. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter and around 60 to 70% of a homeowner's wealth is in their home. The reason for such wealth inequality is because not everyone desires to own and run a business. The Walton family has so much wealth because they basically own half of Walmart. That means all of it's buildings, trucks, merchandise until it is sold and so on. To have wealth equality you will literally have to take property from those who can, or is willing to develop it and give to those that won't. That means wealth overall in a society will fall. Yeah we will have equality in wealth but it will be underdeveloped and poor.
    1
  43. +Bread Canful Walmart does a lot of benefits for society. I creates a lot of jobs for people who simply would not find a job elsewhere. It also has convenient locations and a large selection at low prices in stores that are open 24/7. So it is benefiting the public. People with large amounts of money got there by providing something society demands. Sticking with Walmart they are as big as they are due to the consumers. The consumers made them rich. They did just get rich. When wealth is "more evenly distributed" the overall situation will be worse off. You will see life expectancy drop, illness and overall health get worse and more people suffering. Asking the government to do this is a dangerous approach.
    1
  44. +Bread Canful What vague assertions? I provide a lot of concrete evidence. If Walmart did not care about the health of the economy and society they will not open as many stores as they do. They will be like a Raley's or Hy Vee and open a few stores, close their doors at night, hire less, pay less, and raise prices. I am not saying Walmart is 100% great, but the do provide a lot of benefit to society.
    1
  45. +Bread Canful I gave evidence, you just don't like it. When I hear of complaints about Walmart there is always one component missing in the equation, that is the consumer. Why does Walmart exist? Because of the consumer. They have a business model that attracts customers. I hear of the low wages and poor working conditions and how they have so much money and wealth but I never hear about the customers. It shows pure ignorance when you do that. But I guess you don't know what the word evidence means as well, or how businesses function in this country,
    1
  46. +Bread Canful I gave evidence. You want to talk about wealth redistribution, Venezuela practiced that and their overall wealth is terrible. People think Scandinavian countries practice wealth redistribution but they don't. On Walmart, they are a large employer, one of the largest in the US. But they still offer low prices. Those are facts. I find it funny how you ask me to give citations when you give none yourself. I am giving you evidence. If you want me to take the time to give you citations I can, at that point this goes from being a comment to a thesis. Plus it falls into the trap of where I give evidence and then you just ignore me in the end. I have been there before. I have learned the best way to have your argument fall apart is to ask question. On Walmart, why do you not include the consumers in your criticism? You complain about the wealth they have but why don't you include the consumers in your argument?
    1
  47. +Bread Canful You said in an earlier argument that Walmart does not benefit society, but yet has a lot of consumers and employs a lot of people. So how does Walmart not benefit society?
    1
  48. +Bread Canful Oh, I forgot. You will also give "citation" from bias sources claiming them to be legit. A group called "The Equality Trust", right there that is a red flag. Do you really trust that source? If you do then you are more gullible then I thought. We do have an unequal society, we have an unequal tax code where the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes.
    1
  49. +Bread Canful Ok, read the Washington Post article "How income inequality benefits everybody" Start with that. It shows that one can easily find a counter point to what you are presenting. I do research and reasoning. You trust a book written by a bias source. No different then when someone had me read Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein and by page 17 I could have written a 5 page report showing how ignorant that book was. You also have yet to answer my question in why Walmart does not benefit society?
    1
  50. +Bread Canful So your book is gospel by my source is not? I knew this will happen. This is why I refrain from putting up sources because it leads to one person calling my source flaw and their source the know all. I have a great reason to say it is bias simply from the source. This tells me everything I need to know about you. You pick sources you like and when someone comes, in detail with a counter argument you go "la la la" while plugging your ears. I am still waiting for an answer on my question as well.
    1