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

  1. +chickendinner2012 Nope, Bernie is an economic illiterate. Bernie's policies will put us in at least $18 trillion of debt over the next 10 years. Most likely more.
    5
  2. +zach campbell He can't win because he is an economic illiterate.
    4
  3. +Thomas Ich So you can determine the state of an economy by just the min. wage and the price of a burger?
    4
  4. +federico trujillo The same goes for democrats. For example, Bernie only pays his interns $12/hr but wants a $15/hr min. wage. Nancy Pelosi does not pay some of her interns at all.
    3
  5. FDR turned a recession into a depression.
    3
  6. +Holly Get past the primaries first.
    3
  7. The federal government has no power to decide on how states handle unions. What Bernie is supporting is fascism.
    3
  8. +Ice Wafer Except wealth does not equal income.
    3
  9. +Liz Slen Nus If you want to match inflation then the min. wage would be around $4/hr.
    3
  10. +Xela D One, if the min. wage kept up with inflation since 1968 it would be around $10. But 1968 is always a cherry picked number because it gives the highest value. If you were to look at when the min. wage was created it would be around $4/hr. But even at that you can't tie the min. wage to inflation because not everything inflates.
    3
  11. Yep, raise it to $15/hr and see jobs disappear.
    2
  12. +Andrew Holker I gave Cameron a book to read when he asked for evidence. It is a book written by two professors that cite peer review articles. His reaction was "you want me to read a book?". This guy has no desire to learn. He is a typical Bernie supporter, lazy and wants everything handed to them.
    2
  13. +Jason Banco FDR turned a recession into a depression
    2
  14. Bernie just suggested that businesses will shut down and move to save money. Maybe that will have to do with higher taxes and regulations that Bernie wants to impose on them? Just a thought.
    2
  15. +p3wp3wz0rz Ok, so now not only are the jobs going to be gone, but so will the goods as well. Also, the "living wage" concept really shows the ignorance of Bernie Sanders and his supporters. The immediate flaw of the min. wage is that you are enforcing how much is paid per hour, not per week. So if you raised the min. wage to a "living wage" of $15/hr and hours are cut, then what? If someone is making $50/hr you will say they are earning a "living wage". But if they only work 5 hours a week are they earning a "living income"? A more effective approach would be to push for a "living salary" and abolish hourly wages. But considering how the min. wage is an asinine idea to begin with and the supporters of it are not bright at all, it does not surprise me that they don't think about that concept.
    2
  16. +ZidaneKuja He has been winning elections in a state with the second smallest population. A trivia question is "what is the capital of Vermont" or "what is the largest city in Vermont". Not many people can answer. Vermont is not much to cheer home about.
    2
  17. FDR turned a recession into a depression. He was not a good president.
    2
  18. +daneholmberg It's true. It was the war and eventually his death that got us out of the depression. Funny how he was president during the worse economic time this country has seen and people feel he was a good president. I guess people feel that Matt Millen was a good GM for the Detroit Lions as well.
    2
  19. +Cherry.Bakewell Under Hoover was a recession. Hoover pushed for more federal government action that slowed down recovery. FDR took over and expanded those federal government's involvement which then turned it into a depression. In 1921 we had a recession just as bad as the one in 1929. The federal government did nothing and within a year we recovered. Recessions happen and history shows that when the federal government does nothing then recovery is quick. When the federal government tries to fix the economy (as in the recession of 1929 and 2007) recovery is hindered. So yes, FDR did turn a recession into a depression.
    2
  20. +Danny Boy I love how you start with the military that 1. creates jobs 2. funds research 3. funds education for those who serve 4. help out in domestic disasters You seem to be so supportive of programs that just give money away to people who do nothing and want to cut from a program that actually produces in our society. Also defense budget (which is constitutional BTW) is around 20% of federal spending and is only around $600 billion. Other programs (many that are unconstitutional) make up the rest. In 2016 revenue was around $3.3 trillion and spending was around $4 trillion. Even if we were to cut all military spend, shut the lights out and everything, we still won't be breaking even.
    2
  21. "it'd be good bc we'd be changing from a oligarchy " I don't see how we are an oligarchy. "we're the richest country in the world and some cities don't have clean water." Just because we are a country with a lot of wealth does not mean we are without problems. We also lack kidneys for those who need kidneys, is that related as well? " why cause they budget cut and give tax breaks to rich people, which would pay for these types of problems." Getting the most out of our resources will fix these problems, not giving the government more money to waste. "thats why change is good. " Change to what?
    2
  22. Completely honest question to any Bernie Sanders supporter. Bernie complains about money in politics, and I personally dislike corruption and politicians taking money to determine policies. But I see money in politics as symptom of a disease where Bernie sees it as the disease. I see it as the symptom of a federal government with too much power. This country was designed to have governments with limited power, and the federal government was supposed to be very limited because the the more local government is the better you can see if your tax dollars are being spent well, and the more control you have over government. When you go from local to state and state to federal, you lose that ability. This is the whole idea behind state rights. So if Bernie gets elected and passes his policies which expands the federal government's power, what is going to stop future federal politicians from abusing it? Look at Obamacare, republicans have been using that as a negotiating tool since it has been passed. Do you want federal politicians to have more negotiating tools such as you entire healthcare or college? A completely honest question, what is going to stop future politicians at the federal level from abusing that new power after Bernie is gone? Thanks.
    2
  23. +Nazz Boner Yep because this is the "me" generation. Who cares about actually working for something, they are all entitled to things.
    2
  24. +KeenerThan Clinton is a career politician as well. She has worked in the private sector. Bernie never had a real job until he was 40. Bernie was kicked out of a hippie commune for being too lazy. Do you know how lazy you have to be to do that? He has never done anything in his life but speak rhetoric and be involved in politics. I am not a Clinton supporter but at least she done something.
    2
  25. +KeenerThan The last constitutional amendment ratified was in 1992, before that 1971. He was in the House of Representatives in 1991. The hippie commune smear is legit. He was told to leave because he does no work and only talks politics. The trade deals do a lot of good for foreign relations and our society. Fracking is not bad. The issues that are brought up with fracking are unjustified. Bernie wanting to ban fracking will lead to a lot of job lost.
    2
  26. +Ochoaj300 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357
    2
  27. +Some Edgy Anime Fan I knew who Bernie was for years. I participate in local elections. It isn't' that hard.
    2
  28. Fracking is not the problem. Bernie and his supporters really need to learn facts. That is the major problem, people don't learn facts and feel something like fracking is bad.
    2
  29. Actually FDR turned a recession into a depression. And the Glass-Steagall repeal was not the cause of the recession. Bernie needs to stop lying.
    2
  30. +William Hunter Socialism is holding a gun to someone's head to take their property. That isn't take care of people.
    2
  31. Seriously, people need to ask if he can even get 5% of of what he wants done passed. If you look at the bills he proposed that go along with his radical ideas they get, at best a handful of endorsements from other members of congress. Democrats don't even endorse him, what makes people think congress will pass what he wants?
    2
  32. +YourOasis97 Not really. You can eat healthy for cheap.
    2
  33. +Nunya Bid'nez I would like to see you pay off a million dollar loan. Most Bernie supporters can't even pay off their $50,000 college loan.
    2
  34. These trade deals benefit us in a lot of ways. The countries getting these jobs are underdeveloped and this gives them a chance to develop. Countries that are underdeveloped are more susceptible to crime and violence, like terrorism, which can effect the rest of the world. Also we are a developed nation and should push for creating higher skilled jobs and more higher skilled people. We should have less people working the factory lines and more working in STEM fields and medical fields. That will create more progress for a developed nation, not people doing mundane task for 10 hours in a factory.
    2
  35. +billy .johnson Yep, that company is disgusting giving people jobs and offering goods and services at low prices and convenient locations.
    2
  36. +billy .johnson It is not Walmart's fault that their employees refuse to find a way to earn more or manage money better. Walmart does not have to hire them.
    2
  37. How about you ask the Native Americans what happens when you don't control immigration.
    2
  38. +missinglew Bernie is a racist and a bigot. Him losing was fun to watch. What is even funnier is watching his loser supporters cry about it.
    2
  39. +missinglew Nice rebuttal. I will chalk that up to another ignorant Bernie supporter having not clue what they are talking about.
    2
  40. Bernie basically supports a gang of people oppressing others they don't agree with. That is a problem.
    2
  41. +John King Walmart heirs are worth that much because they own half of Walmart's stock. That is not income, that is shares of stock. There is a difference. "And Wal-Mart could not even operate without people stocking the shelves, cleaning the toilets, unloading the trucks, serving customers....etc" They can always downsize too. Look at how many Walmarts there are compared to Target, Sears, Hy Vee, Raley's, Safeway and so on. Walmart has a lot of profits because they have to keep shareholders happy. If not then the shareholders sell back their shares and Walmart has to downsize.
    2
  42. Democracy means 51% of the crowd tells the other 49% what to do. We have something like that in the past, it was called slavery.
    2
  43. +Ricardo del toro Actually Bernie can't, firefighters are funded locally. Bernie is a federal politician. Some areas have their firefighters funded privately.
    2
  44. So poor people do drugs and alcohol and die early. Where is the villain here? This seems like it is self inflicted. If they are poor how can they afford drugs and alcohol?
    2
  45. His plan involves removing the cap off of social security payments on the payroll tax. He said it will fund it for 50 years. So in 50 years what do we do? Raise taxes again, and again and again until you run out of money. In short, it does not work.
    2
  46. +abrahamchapman Walmart is as big as it is because of its over 3 billion shares outstanding. While you say that $350,000 are earned for each employee, you have to remember that Walmart has to keep stock prices high to keep shareholders happy. That is how Walmart has gotten so big, because of shareholders. If Walmart were to cut profits to pay employees more than shareholders will see their stock prices drop. They will either vote in a new board or sell back their shares leading to Walmart having to downsize thus less jobs and less convenience for customers. So it isn't as easy as saying "X amount of profits, Y amount of employees, Z amount of earnings".
    2
  47. +Kingbubbles I personally feel we should go back to a tax on the states. Get rid of all federal individual taxes like the founding fathers wanted. That will solve this problem. And I don't want Fox.
    2
  48. 1. How would it punish the poor? Don't drink soda? It is that simple. Water is basically free, drink that. 2. If you want universal healthcare then you should push for this. Less people drinking soda means healthier people meaning less of a burden on public healthcare so people that actually needs it would get it 3. How does Bernie expect to pay for this? The money has to come from somewhere........oh, I forgot, the rich. Bernie is a nut.
    2
  49. Ok, who?
    2
  50. +GlitchedSlayer Yep, plus job loss for those that need it.
    2
  51. +Iron Taker When the min. wage was first put in place if you take that value and consider inflation then it would be around $4/hr.
    2
  52. What policy specifics?
    2
  53. +Siberius Wolf There are more factors that determine food prices than wages (Denmark does not have a min. wage BTW). You have supply and demand for example. Another is what hours are they open? Are they open 24 hours a day or only during peak hours? How many stores do they have? If they are limited in stores and limited in hours then they have limited staff who they can pay more but less people have jobs. An example of what I just said is Costco. People praise their higher wages but they only open during certain hours usually during peak times and have few stores. Thus their employees push out more units per hour. But there is also less convenience for certain customers. They are not open a 9 or 10 pm so if you want to buy something there you can't. Or due to their limited stores you have to drive a farther distance to shop there. So it isn't as easy as saying "they pay higher wages and have lower prices". Something has to give.
    1
  54. +Siberius Wolf If you include PPP Australia has a lower min. wage than $17.29. And no, businesses can't afford it, especially smaller competitors. "Also everyone will be getting paid more and more money will be circulating, so there's more money for spending for business owners to make money" If that is all it took then how about we eliminate the middle man and just mail people checks for $20,000? There is a flaw in the min. wage, you are enforcing how much is paid per hour but not per week. How many of those in other countries work full time? In NY when the min. wage went up a Denny's was open 24 hours a day, it stopped and cut hours in doing so. So great, they are paying their workers more but are doing so in less hours. And on your spending idea, spending does not grow the economy, producing does. If spending grew the economy then why not $100/hr?
    1
  55. +Andrew Holker Your airline pilot example brings up a great point and a flaw in Bernie's policies. He is pushing for "free college" and "free healthcare". As is we lack the staff and resources to offer those to everyone. In order to increase staff and resources we need people to be educated, especially in the STEM fields. But why work years in getting educate when you are guaranteed healthcare, and paid vacation, and at least $15/hr min. wage, and jobs from killing those trade agreements or from the government and so on? This is why people make fun of Bernie talking about his unicorn. Somehow we are magically going to have doctors and professors and resources to provide all of these things without people pursuing careers in them.
    1
  56. +Siberius Wolf You are taking a complex situation, in this case the economy, and limiting it down to the min. wage and McDonalds. "Of course we can go into boring tedious details but that's... boring." Of course you won't go into details because it will show that you are wrong in your reasoning. One is that if you include PPP then the min. wage of Australia is around $10.50. But if all it took was having more money for people to spend then why not $100/hr?
    1
  57. +Siberius Wolf $15/hr is pretty high when you consider that Bernie will also guarantee you healthcare and paid vacation. Why work hard when things are given to you? "and education would be free like many other countries " And inferior. There is a reason why the US has the largest percentage of international students. " so that's freedom to go into the fields people want to go into," Ok, I want to go into drinking beer and fishing. " America has a fucking lot of money" So does Zimbabwe. "large fast food companies recently discovered that when they got more money back when they treated their employees better," Actually almost every business has known about that.
    1
  58. +Siberius Wolf The economy is complex. If you want to keep it simple then let us imagine this. Say the government mandates a min. price on gas at $10/hr. Would more or less gas be bought? PPP is cost of living. Why would people all of a sudden not spend if they earn $100/hr? What about $50/hr? What is your reasoning for the $15/hr min. wage? If people are earning $100/hr they can buy new cars every year and expand on their homes and buy new clothes and eat out every day and so on.
    1
  59. +Siberius Wolf If I had healthcare paid for and vacation time then $15/hr is all I need. "people will still want to make more money and get an education and go into certain fields, because they are doing that." Not really. Places like Canada lack resources, we have less in the US. On international students it shows that if someone is going to study outside of their country they will pick the US. I want to only drink beer and fish. That is the lifestyle I want. I should get paid the min. wage to do so. Where is my freedom? Zimbabwe have trillion dollar bills. Business do know that. They simply can't afford higher wages.
    1
  60. +Cameron _ _ "Good thing Bernie's healthcare plan saves businesses over $5000 a year," How? " so they'll be able to afford to pay higher wages, " They won't if Bernie passes a higher payroll tax. "as well as americans would save thousands of dollars a year." How? "Jobs will not disappear" They will.
    1
  61. +Cameron _ _ If you raise the payroll tax then businesses would pay employees less because they simply can't afford the new tax. We was this when the payroll tax was increased in the 60s. Businesses countered by offering benefits. They wouldn't be able to do that now. And how would the cost of healthcare go down when you are putting more people on it? "Americans would save thousands of dollars a year because they will pay $0 for insurance, $0 in copays, $0 in hospital bills, $0 for prescriptions, $0 for oral care (dentistry), $0 for ear care, $0 for long term care, $0 for anything healthcare related" And taxes will go up, wages will go down, quality will be low and wait times would be longer. Not to mention that their taxes will go up. "Tell me exactly how, with evidence, that slashing the price businesses pay for healthcare saving around $9000 a year per worker, and raising the minimum wage to an acceptable level will make jobs disappear. " The min. wage one will be easy, that is econ. 101. I just told you about healthcare that higher taxes will mean lower wages and higher prices. Do you think these things will just magically appear out of nowhere?
    1
  62. +Cameron _ _ I have seen the website. Healthcare cost is up due to the federal government tampering with healthcare. Three areas of the economy has seen increasing prices for the past couple decades, housing, healthcare and college. They are all three areas that the federal government has touches with the FHA, the payroll tax and medicaid and medicare, and the student loan program. Adding more government is going to make it worse. As is we lack doctors, nurses, hospitals and drugs in general. R&D is not cheap. How are you going to solve those problems? Trust me, it it was as easy a going to single payer then so many people would push for it. "He pays for it by the taxes, and ending tax loopholes that allow people to evade taxes legally. " It isn't that easy. "Where are you getting that from? In Canada, the UK, and other major european countries the healthcare is the same quality if not better. It's FAR more efficient and it doesn't put people into debt for getting surgery or some other procedure." The US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world and there are published articles in peer reviewed journals that support that. "People in the UK have shorter wait times than we do" 100% not true. You want evidence? Look up the book "The Business of Health" by Robert Oshfeldt and John Schneider I will send a link in another comment. "if someone 'gives' you $9000, and you have to pay a worker $9000 more a year, you can't afford it and jobs will just disappear out of thin air??? Maybe it's time for you to get an education, I'd like to talk to someone who knows their facts." Where is the $9000 going to come from when you raise taxes? And yes, jobs do disappear. In NY when the min. wage went up a Denny's cut hours by no longer being 24 hours a day. In Berkley the university just cut staff and it happens to correspond when the the min. wage went up. That is basic econ. 101
    1
  63. +Cameron _ _ Here it the link to that book on healthcare http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  64. +Cameron _ _ NY has some of the highest taxes in the US. You wanted evidence so I gave it to you. I am sorry you refuse to look at other sources and facts to expand your mind. I guess I should link you The Communist Manifesto? Or what about Mein Kampf?
    1
  65. +Cameron _ _ The book is on healthcare, it isn't a general book. It gets into detail on healthcare. Insured does not equal care just like government offering your healthcare does not mean you will get it. The overall point of the book is the say that the US does have arguably the best healthcare system in the world. At this point you are replacing one system with problems with another system that has problems as well. You are not making any progress, you are wasting time which would be better spent on improving the system we have now.
    1
  66. +Cameron _ _ What is the point of going to single payer if it means the quality will be lower and wait times will be longer? It is replacing one problem with another. The tuition free college plan has even more headaches. One, how will you pay for it? Two, how will you make up for the lack of TAs, professors, classrooms, staff, etc? Three, how will you handle the NCAA? It isn't as easy as the federal government will pay for it then presto, all is better. Believe me, if it was then I will be all for it.
    1
  67. +Cameron _ _ Lots of unfilled seats? I see long wait lists for classes. In my university we are not allowing any upperclassman in the dorms. We lack TAs to where undergrads are doing it and the TA coordinator literally told me that they need "warm bodies". Not high quality TAs, just anyone. They hired an undergrad biology major to TA for physics. "Secondly, colleges go through professors like hot cakes. A lot of them are part time and they just hire new ones. " And we are still short. Plus those professors are near retirement or looking for full time jobs. "and his sub 1% tax on wall street speculation would provide enough funding to satisfy over 60 billion of that, and the rest of the funding would come from state ran programs such as shifting financial aid to pay for the socialized program instead, as well as other government grants" If it were that simple then I would be all over it, but it isn't. What are you going to do to prevent colleges from raising tuition? What if state decide not to pick up the rest of the tab? Never mind the other legit problems I listed, what about those now? Again, you have this false idea that all we have to do is raise taxes and then everything can be paid for. It isn't that easy. "Once again, the healthcare is not lower quality just because it's now free to access it." According to that book it isn't. "I'm sorry that you don't know how to comprehend common sense," Ah, the "common sense" response. That immediately shows you have no clue what you are talking about. You can't give a legit argument so you say "it is just common sense" which translate to "I don't know anything about the topic so I will just speak out of my ass".
    1
  68. +Cameron _ _ If you increase enrollment those students have to have someplace to live. And most remedial courses are full. Why do states back out? They backed out of Obamacare. "Your questions are hypothetical questions that should be dealt with if it happens." They should be thought of now. We can't create a mess and hope it gets solved. "There are an infinite number of scenarios that could happen." Nope, it is clear what will happen. "Anything can happen, but it's stupid to dread on possibilities when that's the least important issue" You take steps so you don't die on a roller coaster. Here with free college you are not. " The issue here is just student loan debt ruining the lives of millions of students looking to start their adult life clean" It doesn't ruin lives of millions of students, and what is "start their adult life clean"? They don't have to go to college? They can instead get a home loan. College is actually really cheap, especially if you decide to go to a JC or CC or smaller colleges. Mine cost $10,000 a year if you included summer classes. "Obviously the united states has no problem allocating billions of dollars to 'fight' zika virus, so why wouldn't they have a problem adding another billion to the tuition budget." Different things. One you are investing to produce something. In "free college" supply won't meet demand. It is comparable to you paying 10 people to build a house or paying 10 people to have one person build 10 houses.
    1
  69. +Cameron _ _ Sometimes you have to take 2 steps back before you can go forward. Business owners took out loans to start their businesses. Debt happens. If you make college "free" more people will go, that is a fact.
    1
  70. +Cameron _ _ Without businesses there will be no jobs, so why not eliminate business loans as well? I see no difference between a business loan and an educational loan. In fact one can make a better argument in alleviating business loans because we need jobs and production for the economy go grow. High school is paid for and ran by the local governments, I see no comparison between that and the federal government running college.
    1
  71. +Siberius Wolf I know what you said, in Australia if you include PPP the min. wage is around $10/hr. "I don't think that's how they price gas... I'm not sure what you're saying actually..." Why should the government set a price on labor? That is what I am saying. When the government sets a price floor on something and that price floor is higher than what the market values those goods and services, then less people will buy it. With labor when you raise the min. wage the less people will get hired. If you raise the price of gas then less people will buy it. That is what I am getting at. It is all comparable. That is why when the min. wage was created black teenage unemployment went up drastically. That is because they have the lowest skills in the market. The price floor has priced them out of the market. Let us make another comparison, say it was a min. price on cars at $15,000. So many used cars will not get sold and thus simply go to dumps which causes waste. Same here with labor. Instead of those with low skills getting jobs, working, become productive and gaining skills to become even more productive, they are unemployed and it becomes a waste. "then they can easily save up a shitload of money and there's no guarantee they will spend enough of it to get the right amount of circulation because the balance is more likely to not be there." Then why $15/hr? And what makes you think they won't save it as is at $15/hr? You do know that when you save money in a bank that bank circulates that money as well in the forms of loans. So that isn't bad either. If people were earning $100/hr they will put it in banks. Those banks will loan out money so people buy more houses and cars. People with money in banks will collect interest thus they will have more money for retirement and retire early meaning more jobs for people. Damn, I feel we should now raise it to $200/hr. "people in Australia for example aren't settling for that if they have other options." The US is a more productive country so it is safe to assume that people are settling for low wage jobs in Australia. "Businesses can't afford to pay workers more?.. mega businesses have a fucking lot of money dude " Yes they do because they have shareholders to keep happy. They are as big as they are because of shareholders. Without them they will not be as big. Take Walmart for example, they are bigger than a company like Hy Vee or Raley's because of shareholders. The latter two companies pay comparable wages to that of Walmart and sell more expensive items. Walmart got as big as they are because they sell shares. If Walmart were to cut profits to overpay employees then the shareholders will sell back their shares causing the company to go bankrupt. Even at that why about smaller companies? Should they suffer just because you don't like bigger companies? "Cameron seems to know his shit," This is a guy who is using high school education, which is ran and funded locally, to justify the federal government running and funding colleges. I am sure he doesn't know too much.
    1
  72. +Siberius Wolf I also find it ironic because you don't seem to know what money is. Having more money in circulation does not increase the amount of food, clothes, energy, cars, homes, healthcare, apartments etc. we have. If all it took was circulating money then why not cut out the middleman and simply give everyone $20,000? What grows and economy is producing, not spending. If people had more money and there was more money in circulation but production was the same then prices will go up. If it was as simple as people getting more money then every general economics textbook would have to be re-written to say that, but they don't. Instead they talk about the inefficiencies of price setting.
    1
  73. +Siberius Wolf Why aren't loans a great means of circulation? It allows people's savings to grow with interest and allows people to purchase things they usually can't like homes or a business. You say $15/hr is not a lot of. The reality is that the vast majority of those earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor and live in a household that earns, on average, over $47,000 a year. You are paid the market rate, it is up to you to find out how to earn a living. "plus you said youself that our minimum wage isn't very high after PPP, so why would they settle for minimum wage." IDK, some people do and it is sad. People should push for higher skilled jobs because that grows the economy. "I would think Wallmart is rich enough to pay their employees more without losing so much money that they would lose shareholders, since they're seriously that rich.. well.. the richest family in America at least.. last time I checked." The Walton family is wealthy. Wealth does not equal income. The Walton family has so many assets that are valued high because they own half of Walmart. Walmart pays competitive wages and offers cheap products for people with low income to buy. I don't particularly like Walmart but there are benefits with them. "Smaller companies usually have less people to pay and if the circulation is there it will work out for everyone since more people will have more money to spend at their stores." Just because people have more money does not mean they will spend it more on those smaller companies.
    1
  74. +Siberius Wolf What's wrong with large purchases? "Why do some of the poorer people have like 3 jobs then" Very few people have 3 jobs. So little that is it insignificant. That $47,000 a year for a household comes from households where there is another earner who earns most of that. "If no one is buying stuff from the smaller companies, they just wouldn't survive anyway" It isn't just that, they can have customers but due to other factors they simply can't afford higher wages. What if their customers already earn well above the min. wage? You need to factor in that.
    1
  75. +Cameron _ _ If states want to offer "free" college then that is up to them. I do see an argument in it, but we can't let the fed. do it and 4 year colleges should not be considered. College is an investment to develop skills. It is a way to show employers you are willing to invest both time and money in bettering yourself and achieving a goal. When you remove that part of it the college degree decays. " They want better educated workers so they can be more productive" They want a work force with more skills. Studying education I feel that K-12 is not succeeding in developing skills. "but some job positions are unfilled because there aren't enough educated workers" Not enough skilled workers but I do agree. That should be an incentive to go to college for people. " " and the easiest way to fix that is to make it tuition free to go to college so a little more people will go. " It is not that easy because businesses will then view the degree to be of less value.
    1
  76. +Cameron _ _ Making the degree less rare will devalue it. It is a competitive market out there, what are you going to do go above and beyond. K-12 education is ran by the states already. So far not all 50 states have adopted CCSS. A major issue with it being at the federal level is that states are held back. Plus the excuse of people not being able to move is really lame. On the extreme case I had a friend move to one of the most expensive states in the US with no job in line and they made it. It isn't hard to move. "Do you have any other easy ways to make college debt free so everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed? " What is this equal opportunity to succeed? You are keeping it with just college. Why not give out money for others to start a business? My old boss dropped out of college after one semester, pulled out a loan and now runs a profitable business. Why not pay off his debt? Why does he have to live with debt? Because he refused to go to college? What about someone who wants to be an athlete? Do we just tell others to slow down so they can succeed? You are using appeal to emotion rhetoric. People have equal opportunity to pursue success, but you are not guaranteed it.
    1
  77. +Cameron _ _ But why education? Education is actually easily obtainable. Books are essentially free online and there are videos everywhere that can teach you whatever you want to learn. What is "reasonable tuition"? That has no set standard. You are now just making numbers up. Also the average student loan debt is around $28,000, not $50,000. 3/4 of people don't not possess a college degree. Having a college degree in the US is a minority. And why would an employee want something more? To separate you from the rest of the crowd.
    1
  78. +Cameron _ _ How many of those 3/5 actually finish college? Already you are exposing a flaw in "free college". Not everyone finishes so it becomes a waste. Tuition is high because of the federal student loan program. It artificially created a demand for college without increasing supply thus the price went up. "An employer doesn't give a shit if you're separate from the rest of the crowd" An employer does care if you are separate from the crowd. Getting a college degree shows that you are willing to develop a goal and work to complete it. You can be highly skilled but if you can't prove to work towards a goal than you won't get a job. If you make college free than is it really work at that point?
    1
  79. +Cameron _ _ It would devalue a degree, more people having it means the supply is greater lowering it's value. That is econ 101. Businesses look at a lot to separate workers so they can hire them. I am working on going to pharmacy school after my current studies. Talking to pharmacists they say go extracurricular activities because that will separate you from the rest of the crowd. It is a competitive field so you need to do things to expand your resume. The reason why unemployment for those with a college degree is so low is because only around 30% of the nation has one, they are a rarity. Now compare that to unemployment for those with only a high school diploma.
    1
  80. +Cameron _ _ Personally knowing employers, looking for jobs, basic economics and statistics. Why do employers value college degrees so much? Because it separates you from everyone else. What do you do to separate your from others?
    1
  81. +Cameron _ _ What do you mean back up my claim? How many employers do you know? How many jobs have to went after? Have you even filled out a resume?
    1
  82. +Cameron _ _ Think about it, you are employer and you have 2 openings with 20 applications. All 20 have a college degree, how do you pick one? Now change it up to where only 10 have a college degree, now almost eliminate half at that point. In the former case the college degree is now not worth as much.
    1
  83. +Cameron _ _ Experience where? And how do you think people make the best case?
    1
  84. +Cameron _ _ It is not necessarily working a job that is similar. I am a sports official for high school and college. When I apply for jobs I put that on my resume. It shows responsibility, the ability to communicate, being able to learn and being active. So it isn't about a job that is similar, having a job period means a lot.
    1
  85. Actually what Bernie said is radical. What he said never existed in the US, and other countries are different than the US. Trying to drastically change the culture of an entire countries, especially one of 320+ million people is radical.
    1
  86. Don't blame Goldman Sachs, blame the federal government. Recessions happen, the federal government makes it worse. In 1920 we had a recession that was comparable to that of 1929 and 2007. The federal government did nothing and we recovered in 1921. In 1929 and 2007 we had the federal government trying to "fix" the economy.......the rest is history.
    1
  87. Social Security is going broke, it has a deficit.    Anyway the payroll tax has led to lower wages and higher healthcare prices.  So next time you hear about stagnate wages you can blame FICA taxes like SS.  Businesses avoided paying higher taxes in payroll by paying for healthcare insurance which is 100% tax free.  Bernie is complaining is about promises not being kept, money up front is basically guaranteed, but the payroll tax has made it harder to raise wages.
    1
  88. +Jm Besson Bernie will have to raise taxes to get more revenue. You will have somewhat of an argument if all it was about was changing how taxes are spent, but that is not the case.
    1
  89. +Edward Greene Bernie is like that old man on his porch yelling "get off my lawn". He is a complete joke and a communist. He is losing because his supporters are so lazy they feel someone will go out and vote for them. Just like they want other people to work and pay for their "free shit".
    1
  90. +meek miLL Bernie does repeat himself. If he would have won the primaries I was considering making a Bernie Sanders pull string doll or a Bernie Sanders See 'n Say. It would have made millions that Bernie would have taxed.
    1
  91. Bernie has such a hard on for the Koch Brothers. This gang mentality is not healthy and is not what we need to grow as a country.
    1
  92. +rapinjohn1 I am against Bernie because 1. He is economically illiterate 2. He has that gang mentality which does not solve problems, it only creates them 3. Even if he won almost everyone in DC does not care for him and he won't get any of his policies passed
    1
  93. Bernie flew hours to get to Rome pumping CO2 in the air to do something he really has no business doing. Way to fight climate change Bernie.
    1
  94. +Cutestshoes Is that necessarily a good thing?
    1
  95. +Victoria Linthicum Yes, to set an example. Here is Bernie wanting to pass policies that will tap into my wallet so I can't decide how I want to spend my money, will raise energy prices, and will hurt my career. He has no problem telling me and others what to do. But when he has the chance to have a pointless meeting in Rome then I guess he can do whatever he wants. I see a lot of hypocrisy there.
    1
  96. +Cutestshoes When I did my taxes this year I don't recall sending anything to a corporation.
    1
  97. Fun fact: Cops shot more white people last year than black people
    1
  98. +SodaBoy628 The recession started before FDR. Let us look at some history In 1920 we saw a crash that was just as bad as what happened in 1929. Hoover was asked to do something by Wilson and when Hoover came up with a plan things were getting better due to no federal government intervention. Come 1929 another crash happened. Hoover tried to do something but things did not get better. FDR tried to do something and things did not get better prolonging recovery making a depression. It wasn't until the war and his death that we got out of the depression. Every single recession we had in this country except for two we recovered from in around 5 years or less. The two we did not were the great depression and the current situation we are in now. They are times when the federal government was the most active in "fixing" the problem, but history shows that it made it worse. So again, FDR turned a recession into a depression. Bernie will do the same thing.
    1
  99. +Walter Benjamin He got plenty of news coverage. People found out that he was a nut.
    1
  100. There have been a lot of benefits in the trade deals. But of course Bernie won't bring them up. This guy is such a loser.
    1
  101. +Danny Boy If we did not have such high taxes and regulations then we would not have major problems. We are a developed country. These trade deals allow developing countries with limited jobs to obtain jobs which allows them to grow. This prevents radical groups from overtaking them such as terrorists. We are a developed nation. We need to push people to take on higher skilled jobs and hold onto archaic jobs. Bernie wants "free college" and "free healthcare". An issue with that is that we lack resources and staff. Pushing people to take higher skilled jobs and focus on the STEM fields would help us get more people access to healthcare and college. But holding onto low skill jobs and not pushing people to push for more skills does not grow our economy.
    1
  102. +jakob Kömpel Nope, benefits for all.
    1
  103. +Danny Boy Actually no. A 100 years ago we had no payroll tax and very few people were taxed federally considering how the federal income tax just became constitutional. But thanks for showing you are ignorant on history.
    1
  104. +Danny Boy The trade deals had something to do with it just like the tractor replaced farmers. Old jobs go and new ones come in their place. We push for people to take on harder job. Higher skill jobs do exist, people need to be trained for them. Instead people rather go after gender studies and vote for a politician that offers them free shit.
    1
  105. +Danny Boy What deregulation happened in 2008?
    1
  106. +ramiloish Different societies, can't compare.
    1
  107. +Ronald Mcdonald I agree with you. Fracking is not a problem. It does not cause earthquakes or contaminates our water. This misinformation is regressive liberalism at it's finest. Banning fracking will kill jobs and no, we can't just go to "clean energy" in that it is not efficient yet. It amazes me how stupid people can be and fall for this guy so easily.
    1
  108. +KoiandDragon You have this http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.abstract "We found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids." I would have to look into your source more but it isn't referencing fracking in the abstract.
    1
  109. +LngVly22 But Denmark, and Norway. Plus, you dumb racist, he is a "democratic socialist". So he is 100% right.
    1
  110. +LngVly22 I am being sarcastic. I find you comment to be quite funny because that is how Bernie and his supporters think. I also find it funny the reaction Bernie supporters give which is what I was mocking. Apology accepted.
    1
  111. The problem with Bernie is that he will be the one that breaks you legs and then give you crutches saying "Look, you need the government to walk" A great example is the min. wage. After raising it to $15/hr many people will not be able to get jobs. He will create government jobs and say "Look, you need the government to get a job" And this will be after you government funded K-12 education and then "free college"
    1
  112. So People in their 30s, 40s, and 50s have to all of a sudden get retrained and change careers? This is why Bernie is losing. His ideas are radical and will do more harm than good. This is not even considering how just getting off of fossil fuels will hurt the economy.
    1
  113. +xxuncexx That would never happen considering the vast majority of workers already earn more than the min. wage.
    1
  114. +Julius Caesar "The thing is, prices have been going up " Not necessarily true. "the minimum wage being stagnant" Because the true min. wage is $0. "While CEO's are paid 300-500x what their workers make" Which means what? How about you compare what they make to what all the workers make. For example, if you were to take the money the top 6 executives of Walmart earn and spread it out to the 525,000 employees that earn less than $25,000 a year they will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. In comparison to that you see that CEOs don't earn much.
    1
  115. +MrBigEnchilada Why does it matter? Do you know what someone gets paid as much as they do? Because someone is willing to pay that much and the market determines what that person is worth.
    1
  116. +MrBigEnchilada "You're deflecting the question, you think someone making $200,000/hr for a speech is ok?" Not my say and not my money so I don't care. If I was given that kind of offer I won't turn it down. NFL refs get paid, on average, around $160,000 a game. Is that right? Who is to say? "she worked harder in one speech than Bernie worked in one year? " It isn't how much harder you work, it is the value you create. You can work very hard in the desert digging holes, how much will you earn doing so? " A public elected official taking that amount of money is troubling" I agree. That is why I support having strict limitations on government, especially the federal government. If government has no power the it can't be bought. "well, the question i have is why does Clinton insist that she is against wealthy people making millions and millions of dollars per year in her campaign, when she does the same?" Good question. Clinton is a politician and corrupt and I don't like her either. She is a great example of how we should have strict limitations on the federal government and really all governments. This is why Milton Friedman said we should keep government as local as possible to ensure that it remains the servants and not the masters.
    1
  117. +MrBigEnchilada Why didn't she beat Obama in 2008? She ran a poor campaign. But being president does not necessarily mean you are smart. Who wants the job? It is highly stressful and you don't get paid much.
    1
  118. +Ray Hawkins The federal government is not a democracy, it never has been. I want smaller, more local government with limitations on them as well. States and local government would have more control of domestic policies but there will still be limitations on them. This is actually all outlined in the constitution. "and that is why we oppose people getting paid $250K a speech as a bribe and a means of perpetuating the oligarchy that we have in place now" If there were limitations on what federal politicians can do then you can pay them all you want and it wouldn't matter, they can't do anything since they don't have any power.
    1
  119. +Solid Structure Canada is a shitty place according to a lot in the US.
    1
  120. +Solid Structure You feel that that the US is a joke, but people in the US feel Canada is a joke.
    1
  121. The fact that Bernie does not understand the difference between income and wealth really makes him unfit for president.
    1
  122. +Rich2B181 Actually he doesn't cite anything reliable. It is easy to berate Bernie. It is like berating a fat guy for being fat. He is an economic illiterate. I am more concerned by how stupid his supporters are.
    1
  123. +Rich2B181 I am not paid by anyone. I just like to educate people. But at the same time seeing all these dumb people make me realize how easy getting a job will be.
    1
  124. +Rich2B181 I don't get paid to write these comments. I just find Bernie supporters to be ignorant. " have studied economics for YEARS and I would gladly refute any argument you make against his proposals." Ok, pick any one of his economic proposals and I will break down for you how he is wrong or it won't work.
    1
  125. +Rich2B181 Here is the major issue I have with Bernie and his supporters though. It isn't that they are economic illiterates. It is that they are constantly complaining about a rigged this or a rigged that. They are complaining about corruption in the government. They complain how the government is supposedly not working for the people. With that I find it crazy to want to expand government than. I don't like corruption in government either. But the solution is not to expand the federal government. I assume you don't like the corrupt government. Bernie himself may be very sincere, but what about other politicians because they clearly aren't. He is the major flaw in Bernie and his supporters way of thinking. Take the current state of the federal government and how it is corrupt and now imagine it controlling your healthcare, college education, infrastructure spending, jobs for the youth, even more taxes and more of your money. Take this exact same government that Bernie supporters claim is not working for the people and is corrupt and add on the fact that now it controls all of that? Is that really a solution? But anyway, I accept your challenge on economics. Pick any one of his policies and I will break down how it won't work.
    1
  126. +Rich2B181 So allowing the current government to control our healthcare, college education, infrastructure spending, jobs, and more of our money means more transparency?
    1
  127. +Rich2B181 Also, give me any economic policy that Bernie supports and I will break it down for you how it won't work. The fact that you are avoiding that issue shows you are economically illiterate as well.
    1
  128. +Rich2B181 "Transparency means we understand how the money is being transferred through government." You can do that easier the more local government is. Tell me how much do we spend on all of our government programs at the federal level and if it is even efficient? You can't even though those numbers exist.
    1
  129. +Rich2B181 Ok, the $15/hr min. wage. How would that help?
    1
  130. When these Bernie supporters get older and get a job they will feel pretty stupid voting for Sanders.
    1
  131. +Jefferson Westwood That doesn't change the norm.
    1
  132. +Harrison Gibson You clearly don't understand economics.
    1
  133. +William Hermanson Bernie Sanders supporters have the mindset of if the business less then good. They feel they don't need their "greed". Little do they know that if they leave so does all the productivity. I really think they feel all of these things magically come.
    1
  134. +Patrick O'Brian But a $15/hr min. wage isn't?
    1
  135. +Jen Bailey You can't tie it to productivity because not every job has become more productive. Productivity has increased due to increases in technology. Those that invested in it or created it have seen a wage increase. It is called Skilled Biased Technological Change. With increase technology goods and services do get better and do drop in price. The average hourly earnings is around $24/hr. So earnings have been keeping up with productivity. I have seen Robert Reich reasons. To start, he is not an economist, he is a lawyer. Next, he reasoning is flawed and never gets into detail why $15/hr. It begs the question why not $50/hr?
    1
  136. +Bonnie's Workshop Ok, how would you feel if I took your job away simply because of a hunch? See how you like being unemployed and living off of the government.
    1
  137. +Fresh Haus In a lot of ways that is true.
    1
  138. How will you offer healthcare and college?
    1
  139. +TheManCave You do know that K-12 education is funded and ran locally?
    1
  140. +TheManCave The vast majority of federal funding in education are to Title I schools, and that is only if that state picks up the federal standards which they don't have too. Around 41 states are following common core meaning not every state follows federal standards. It is similar to smog testing. Areas of the country that follow it get federal funding, others that don't do smog testing on vehicles don't get federal money. "There is no constitutional reason for the federal government to provide education to anybody." And the federal government doesn't provide education to anyone. Education isn't a right. Thus it defaults to the 10th amendment where states can provide public education if they so desire and they do. The only restriction that the states have to follow is that if they do provide it they have to provide it to all via the 14th amendment. Any federal funding of education is unconstitutional. If a state wants to fund college and healthcare they can do that as well. That is that state's rights via the 10th amendment. That is the reasoning behind all of that.
    1
  141. +TekReview's That is CA decision to do what they do. In my city we do it for federal funding.
    1
  142. +TekReview's I drive to and from CA quite often. I am not required to have an emission test to do so. To get register that car in that state you might, but to go to that state you don't have to.
    1
  143. +TekReview's Plus you don't have to get an emission test if your car is not that old. Same with inspection in some states and cities.
    1
  144. +TekReview's Funny, I was in CA 2 weeks ago, nothing happened.
    1
  145. +TekReview's Yeah, but not all states. You never said other states by the way. You only said CA. Read English much?
    1
  146. +whyamimrpink78 I see that TekReview ignored me because they decided not to be clear on their comments and then criticize me for not being able to understand them. Nice to see someone doesn't know how to write well.
    1
  147. +Cameron _ _ Water is basically free.
    1
  148. +Cameron _ _ So we should reward people's bad behavior? Why would I expect anything different from Bernie.
    1
  149. +Cameron _ _ These same people complaining about the tax on soda want other people to pay for their healthcare. So practice poor health habits and get free healthcare. That is rewarding bad behavior.
    1
  150. +Cameron _ _ Water is basically free. I pay $0 a year for water. If someone can't stay healthy due to life choices then that is their fault. It doesn't take much effort to eat healthy and exercise. I am going to run two miles here soon and then lift tomorrow morning.
    1
  151. +driventolegend What I find to be ironic is that Bernie and his supporters are complaining about a corrupt government but yet feel that somehow allow it to control more of our lives will make it better.
    1
  152. +Ray Hawkins 1. FDR turned a recession into a depression. Also Glass-Steagall was a pointless law decades ago, bringing it back won't don't anything but create more federal government overreach. 2. The mainstream media hate Bernie because he is boring and if he got elected nothing will get done. 3. Bernie is pretty much a communist. You can call a shovel an ice cream truck but it is still a shovel. Also public education is locally ran and funded, pointing towards it to justify a larger federal government does not support your argument.
    1
  153. +Ray Hawkins 1. It was the war and his death that got us out of the depression. FDR turned a recession into a depression. Also with Glass-Steagall we still saw recessions, it is just that the federal government did not overreact like FDR did. And the Glass-Steagall repeal did not cause the recession. 2. They show Trump because he is entertaining whether you like him or not. Bernie sounds like that old guy on the porch yelling "get off my lawn". 3. " As for public education, my point was that that is a socialist policy. It is required by federal law that these local institutions be in place." That is 100% false but thanks for showing that you don't even understand how our current government works. As for Common Core, 46 states adapted common core. Not every state uses it. Let me tell you a little secret why........they don't have to follow federal standards. Considering how you don't even know how our current government runs it is safe to say you don't know what communism is.
    1
  154. +Ray Hawkins http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/
    1
  155. I like the FDR references. Under FDR a recession turned into a depression. Saying FDR was a good president is like saying Matt Millen was a good GM for the Detroit Lions. I find it sad that people want another depression.
    1
  156. +Johnyliltoe Actually people have been able to light water from their tap for decades before fracking was being done. Fracking is not the reason why people can light water on fire from the tap. Bernie literally lied in this video.
    1
  157. She's dumb, that is why she supports Sanders.
    1
  158. +MORE1500 Yep, the top 10% pay 70% of federal income taxes while earning only 40% of the income.
    1
  159. +chuhrros Regressive liberal education. Tax people at a high rate and they won't revolt somehow.
    1
  160. +chuhrros So when the top 10% pay 70% of federal income taxes but only earn 40% of the income that means they are paying a lower tax rate? I can see that math is not your strongest subject.
    1
  161. +chuhrros We are not talking about what Sanders is proposing, we are talking about what is occurring now. My profession? I am going after a PhD in physical chemistry. I have a math minor and use math in a lot of my work.
    1
  162. +Steve Robinson We have a middle ground, it is called the constitution. We just need to follow it.
    1
  163. +senzers69 Yeah, when did he ever say that? Trump, like the vast majority of the country wants to remove illegal immigrants. And if you don't want to control immigration, how about you ask the native Americans what happen when you don't control immigration.
    1
  164. +Nunya Bid'nez Why? He put himself in a position to not earn such a low wage. Others can do it as well.
    1
  165. +Ivan Solomon Nathan Yes it is. Less than 4% of workers earn at or below the min. wage.
    1
  166. +MrIzzyDizzy Actually people are commodities. If you can't justify a higher wage than you don't get hired. Most people supporting Bernie will not get hired if the min. wage were $15/hr.
    1
  167. +MrIzzyDizzy The min. wage is enforcing how much a business pays per hour, not per week. You need to realize that.
    1
  168. +Ivan Solomon Nathan Close to 80% of those earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor. That is because they are not the primary earners of the home. A lot of those in poverty are unemployed. Raising the min. wage won't help them. When broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage
    1
  169. +Nunya Bid'nez We should be looking at the US
    1
  170. +MrIzzyDizzy To be blunt you are not correct. If it all it took was an increase in the min. wage to increase production then why not a $50/hr min. wage? You are focusing simply on dollars. That is important sometimes but you have to realize you can't consume what you don't produce. You are focusing on spending. Spending isn't good, what's good is producing. If people are paid more but production does not increase than price will go up. "actually rasing minimum wage will raise demand about 110%" That is not supported by any data at all. Even Christina Romer said that increasing the min. wage to $9.50/hr will not grow the economy a significant amount. At $10.10/hr it will increase it, at best, around 0.2%. Not 110% like you claim. "i couldnt buy anything new , struggled with child support which nearly put me in jail and could barely afford xmas gifts for my kids." One, don't have kids. Next, I don't buy a many new things either. Most businesses don't either. Recycling reduces waste. I thought Bernie supporters wanted to help the environment? "you are really a moron if you think 9.50 isnt dirt poor" It depends. "at that level you need food stamps just to eat and probably need a room mates or as you say a better paid wage earner willing to help pay for things." Most people who earn $9.50/hr or less are not the primary earners of the household. And what is wrong with roommates? Sorry you have to make sacrifices. I work a second part time job (with very flexible scheduling) to earn extra income. It doesn't bother me. "Empathy and moral concern chief among them" You should never let emotions get in the way of logic and reasoning. "but also economist love bernies plans" As a whole they don't.
    1
  171. +Nunya Bid'nez Completely 100% false. Less than 4% of current workers earn the min. wage or less. The average hourly earnings is over $22/hr. Based off of what you are saying close to 100% of workers will be earning the min. wage.
    1
  172. +A Gamer Aaron (Channel) Businesses don't pay more for one simple reason....they can't afford it.
    1
  173. +MrIzzyDizzy Actually they can't afford it.
    1
  174. +MrIzzyDizzy Apple is one company, they also have to keep their shareholders happy.
    1
  175. +Nunya Bid'nez Without shareholders that company will be a fraction of the size it is now. Thus less jobs will be available. Maybe people will get paid more, maybe not. But there will be less jobs. You really need to learn how businesses function.
    1
  176. +Nunya Bid'nez " living wages" Right there, stop. That is a subjective phrase that means nothing. Those workers are paid the market rate. Shareholders are investing their money and want to see it grow. If the business were to overpay their workers then the company will struggle causing the shareholders to elect a new CEO or sell back their shares causing the company to go under. Now congrats, those workers are earning $0.
    1
  177. +Nunya Bid'nez Corporations have the resources to cut back and still manage. Small businesses don't. Walmart supported the min. wage increase knowing it would hurt smaller competitors. Also, fun fact. If the top 6 executives of Walmart were to earn $0 and spread their salary to the 525,000 lowest earning employees of Walmart, they will earn an extra $147 a year. That's it. In comparison to their entire staff CEOs don't earn much.
    1
  178. +MrIzzyDizzy Living wage is subjective. What a "living wage" is to you is different to me. What type of housing? I don't use medicine. What type of clothes? It is subjective.
    1
  179. +MrIzzyDizzy Yes clothing type is subjective. "housing means the low rent homes in your area," With how many roommates? And have you considered the element of crime in those area? "food - the cheapest food aviable to get 2k calories" Which is pretty cheap. Water is basically free and yes, medicine depends on your health. So again, subjective. " of course you are lying if you say youve never been sick or broken a bone or something" I am pretty healthy overall. $7.25/hr is pretty livable in a lot of areas. Also, the vast majority earning that much are not poor.
    1
  180. Flint, MI is a reason why I support state rights and smaller more local government. What happened in Flint is not good, but it is isolated in Flint. Now say instead the federal is controlling everyone's water and the federal government messes up like the Flint government did. Guess what? We are all screwed. This is a big reason why I opposed Bernie Sanders.
    1
  181. +Brent Spiner That is an issue that Flint has to deal with. They have all the rights they need to fix it. They can have a recall election, they have have city meetings, they can go to the press, they can protest and so on. If they don't then that is laziness and that is their fault.
    1
  182. To start, Bernie needs to stop lying. The number of jobs lost is questionable. Next, these trade deals have a lot of benefits. They are going to undeveloped countries that gives them a chance to develop. An undeveloped country is prone to being overtaken by radicals and becoming a problem to the rest of the world. Like with terrorism in the Middle East. We are developed as a nation and thus should not focus on such low skilled jobs. We should push people to have the drive get better and take on higher skilled jobs. We are short doctors, we are short professors despite college enrollment going up. We can always improve technology. Holding onto archaic jobs is not a solution to our problems.
    1
  183. +Mr Brownstone Actually no, the job is listed precisely in the Constitution. Plus this is overseeing the well being and safety of the American people. If you read my comment I said the gives a chance for undeveloped countries to become developed and reducing the chance for radical groups to take over.
    1
  184. Few people are working 50 to 60 hours a week. Most that do either 1. made such poor decisions that they are working that much meaning that it is their fault 2. are so indulged into their work they don't mind working that much, typically those are people who are very successful such as business owners Bernie is right when he says most people don't have a 40 hour work week, they work less than 40 hours a week. If someone wants to work less than 40 hours, or limits themselves to 40 hours then fine, I have no problem with that. I would work hard to take their place and become successful along with others. That is why we have income inequality, people expect to work very little but gain a lot. So when they work a small amount and gain little, and others pick up the slack well....you have income inequality.
    1
  185. +EnigmicIdentity I have read the poll. I think you need to read it yourself. One it shows that 50% of salary workers are working 50+ hours a week. That skews the results in that salary workers take on a job due to enjoyment. I work well over 50 hours a week as a doctorate student but enjoy what I do. Business owners do as well. Professors, lawyers, coaches, managers etc., most take on the job for enjoyment and are paid salary. Those individuals fall in category 2 that I listed. Also in that Gallup article links to another one entitled "For Employees Wellbeing, Engagement Trump Time Off" People who enjoy their job have no problem staying longer hours and putting forth more effort. That also skews the stats. There are those who work another job. The Gallup article mentions how 86% of full time workers have a second job. That means most who have two jobs do not work full time. The fall in category 1 of my list. They did not put themselves in a position to have a full time job that pays well. So to answer this question "or do you think they are "so indulged" in their work? " The answer is yes for those who typically work over 40 hours a week. This is just another example of Bernie lying to the American people and his supporters simply being lazy. Also I don't see how Fox News is relevant here. But if you want to run with logical fallacies then fine.
    1
  186. +EnigmicIdentity "The poll wasn't based on salaried workers." It did make mention of them if you read the article related to the poll. "You present no evidence supporting your estimation of the prevalence of your second category.  " Actually I did. If they worked more than 40 hours a week then they would receive overtime unless they are on salary. If they are on salary than they most likely have a career they enjoy. If they are on wage then their company is is not too bright for wanting to pay time and a half. "  Professors and such do not compose 38% of the work force" But they do factor in. " I also know factory workers who are required to work 60 hours, and not one of them has ever expressed that it was their preference." I beg to differ. I know many who enjoy working that much for the money. If their company is willing to pay it then how is that bad? If they don't like the job they can quit. "On the other hand, we do need things built.  We need roads and bridges.  " If we built them correctly the first time then they would last longer. "BTW, few doctorate students "work" over 50 hours" I guess you never went to grad school? If you want a job after grad school you do. " because they are not paid for them." They are paid as TAs and RAs. If not then they are not going to have a successful career following graduate studies anyway. Again, what does Fox News have to do with anything? I suggest you read the poll again. It does talk about salary workers, it also shows that for over the past decade the average number of hours full time workers work has been stagnate. Like any Bernie supporter you don't accept facts.
    1
  187. +EnigmicIdentity "It mentions them but the 39% statistic is not based on them." Yes it is. Re-read the article. "In many circumstances, time and a half is a bargain for them." True, and it is a deal for the employee as well. So what is the big deal? "I did.  Just one more things for you to guess incorrectly about, I suppose." Great, I can see it didn't help your reading skills much. "I do not know one person in my school that was paid for 50+ hours as a TA or RA.  In fact, that was strictly against policy." You are contracted for 20 hours, but you still worked 50+. That is if you want a job coming out of grad school. "LOL... it mentions them.  So what?" It lumps them in with all workers, and then shows that 50% of salary workers work 50+ hours a week. For wage workers it is only 26%. "What does that have to do with the issue?  It's better because it's been going on for a long time?" When our economy was strong following the 90s we still had this issue. With that it is a non-issue but a reality that continues to exist. People work those hours because they want too. Yes you will have some that don't, but as a whole it isn't a problem. You are abusing stats to paint a false picture. "I accept facts," No you don't. " but you have no understanding of what facts are relevant." Says the person that does not understand that they looked a salary workers. "You, on the other hand, assert that "Few people are working 50 to 60 hours a week."  I point out that 39% of full-time workers work over 50 hours a week. " Which is still a minority. Also how many do it because they enjoy their job? That is where the salary workers come in and what was mentioned in the end of the article which you keep avoiding. "You cite nothing to back your wild assertions" I am citing the exact same poll you are citing. "Your assertion is just false.  " Unless you think your source is false then it is which is saying you are false. "Millions upon millions of Americans are working long hours" So? And million upon millions of Americans will be using the bathroom within the next 20 minutes....what's your point? "I'd say that it is you that are adverse to facts. " The same facts that come from the poll you cited. "What's worse is that your conclusion, that Sanders supporters want less working hours because they are simply lazy, is inane." It is true. When others are successful and Bernie supporters aren't then don't complain. Remember who was pushing for less hours.
    1
  188. +EnigmicIdentity Those extra hours are work. In grad school it is a personal relationship with your and your advisor. While you get a grade in the end you are still working. If you don't do work it isn't that you get a failing grade, it is that you kick kicked out of whatever research group you are a part of. You are fired like any other job. I can tell you have little, if any experience in grad school. "Did you make an assertion about people using the bathroom?  No, you made the assertion "Few people are working 50 to 60 hours a week." That is false.  " Actually what I said isn't false. Millions of people is still small in a country of 300+ million people. Also, what is work? As I said before a lot of those people work on their own will. That Gallup poll you cite even says that and says it leads to more production. But of course you have been ignoring that the whole time. " YOU need to cite something other than what I am citing" Why? Why go beyond what you are citing? I am showing you right off the bat that you are misrepresenting the data. You are not showing the whole picture. You are trying to pull wool over people's eyes and it isn't working for me. You refuse to acknowledge what is said at the end of the poll because it supports what I said at the beginning. You can't even use your sources currently. I am making a strong argument off of that alone. "Never mind, you are clearly dense" Says the person who refuses to acknowledge the entire source they cite. "no wonder you worry so much about finding employment after school.  Good luck to you." Actually I am not worried at all. I can quit grad school right now and find a job pretty easily. It is the Bernie supporters that are scared.
    1
  189. Serious question for Bernie supporters. How many of you are going to work in the healthcare industry for a living?
    1
  190. Wealth inequality is great, it shows a strong economy. Income in equality exists due to our large welfare programs and progressive taxation.
    1
  191. I agree, there is a lot of greed in Bernie Sanders supporters. Watching this video all I hear is "boo hoo".
    1
  192. +LILPAPASMURF97 Do you want the federal government to control something that is 1/6 of our economy?
    1
  193. Fracking does not harm anything. Banning fracking will kill several jobs. Vote for Bernie is a vote for putting people out of work and in poverty.
    1
  194. +William Brennan I have heard of that story and I have actually used it to criticize Bernie's policies. I have said that a moderate approach would be to build the Keystone pipeline but use spoons. It would create jobs and never get built, both sides win.
    1
  195. +Cherry.Bakewell Hoover is not off the hook here, but FDR took over 4 years later and things did not get better until almost a decade later.
    1
  196. Bernie is a regressive liberal. This is what they do. When they don't get their way they cry and break things like an undisciplined child. Similar to the Trump protestors flipping cop cars over or OWS people.
    1
  197. I agree, we need to stop outsourcing jobs. We can start by removing federal taxes and regulations. But of course what democrat will support that.
    1
  198. +Danny Boy Not really. We can go back to a tax on the states like it use to be and get rid of a lot of federal programs.
    1
  199. Why is change automatically good?
    1
  200. There isn't a difference. Just because we have a lot of wealth doesn't mean we don't have problems. You are setting an arbitrary standard.
    1
  201. What causes inflation? Labor costing more. Increasing the min. wage will lead to higher prices and less jobs. In a healthy economy inflation should essentially not exist. In an economy that is messed with by politicians who have nothing to gain or lose in how well the economy is doing, the economy will not grow properly if at all.
    1
  202. +DynamicUnreal Ok, what about children right now who become senior citizens and there is no money left?
    1
  203. +46619TAB The mindset of Bernie supporters "I am poor, it is the rich fault" "Bernie lost, it is the fault of voter suppression" Bernie and his supporters can't take any self responsibility.
    1
  204. +Karuska22ps You really need to stop comparing us to other countries. You are ruling out several variables when you do, mainly the massive cultural differences. Even with that, other countries face problems as well. Replacing a system with problems with another system with problems is not the solution. When you say other countries do it you are limiting your argument ot 1. they are countries 2 people live there Not a strong argument. And no, you are not entitled to education.
    1
  205. +SlowerMindsKeepRight If you want a say in how taxes are spent then you need to support smaller more local government. Expanding the size of the federal government is not the solution, it is actually the problem.
    1
  206. +SupremeStoops You just made one of the most ignorant arguments ever. You can't just sit there and says "well socialism works in other countries, it can clearly work in the US". You are taking a complex situation and limiting down to 1. they are countries 2. people live there That is a completely ignorant argument. You are eliminating so many variables, especially cultural ones. This is also disregarding that those countries have problems as well, and are arguably not doing as well as the US. Which country do you want to copy? Denmark who has mandatory military? Germany who limits who can go to college? Norway who subsidizes their socialism with oil? Which model? Tell me.
    1
  207. +KoiandDragon Firefighters: Around 70% of firefighters are volunteered and the fire department is locally funded.....you are already not off to a good start Police: locally ran an funded Garbage: Depending on where you live it is either locally funded or privately. In my hometown it was privately funded where you paid to have someone take it SS and Medicare: Unconstitutional and losing money Libraries: locally funded and ran locally EPA: A job killing program and unconstitutional Public schools: Locally ran and locally funded So to recap you listed 4 programs that are locally ran and funded 1 that is privately funded 1 where most of the workers are volunteered 2 unconstitutional programs that do more harm than good And you are using this to justify voting for Bernie Sanders? Really?
    1
  208. +KoiandDragon We don't need a federal EPA because the states can run it. I don't have a problem with locally funded programs because they are constitutional and that is the most effective form of government. That is my overall problem with Bernie, he wants to expand the fed which is just going to create more problems. Finland is a country that has a smaller population than some of our states. Finland has a completely different university system than the US does. It is not comparable. Even if you were to compare the US has a very strong university system.
    1
  209. +O v e r T i m e Shhhh, Bernie supporters don't understand economics. What I find to be funny is that they are pushing for a law that demands how much a company pays per hour but not per week. The min. wage intentions are immediately flawed off of that alone. Also even Bernie himself said prices will go up.
    1
  210. I love how Bernie complains about corruption in politics but want politics to run our healthcare, education and more of our money. His supporters are idiots.
    1
  211. +dipojones So he wants to remove corruption in government by giving it more power and thus more to sell to the highest bidder?
    1
  212. +Prashant verma I agree that with the correct checks and balances we can have an system with limited corruption. We have the blueprint for that already, it is called the constitution. Limit the powers of the federal government and give more to the states. Remove all federal taxes except for a tax on the states. Have the states run healthcare and college education if you want any government to run it at all. But expanding the fed. will just make the problem worse. " And that is what we are trying here." You are not saying that. All Bernie supporters are saying is "higher taxes and more government" without any standards to have checks and balances.
    1
  213. $12,000 should be enough. How about the fed stops causing inflation. Think about it, how much is $12,000 anyways? That is just an arbitrary number. The economy is far more complex than just looking at dollars.
    1
  214. +Yeniel Otero Why?
    1
  215. +Yeniel Otero But less than 2% of min. wage workers actually work full time? Very few people are trying to live off of it. When broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage.
    1
  216. +Kyrie Irving Yep, FDR was so good that he turned a recession into a depression.
    1
  217. +Kyrie Irving When did the depression take place?
    1
  218. +Kyrie Irving Every other recession took around 5 years or less to recover from with little to no federal government action. You never hear of the Panic of 1873 or 1837 because they were not as big as the great depression. Or what about the recession of 1920 to 1921? That was just as big as the one in 1929, but due to the federal government not doing anything the economy recovered quickly. FDR took the federal government and tried to "fix" the economy which led to a depression. I said this before, people who felt that FDR was a good president and good for the economy most likely feel that Matt Millen was a good GM for the Detroit Lions.
    1
  219. +Kyrie Irving In 11th grade did you learn about the Panic of 1873 or the Panic of 1837, or the recession of 1920, or other recessions? Most likely not. The reason why is because they were small, recovery was quick. Under FDR recovery was slow for a reason. It was also the first time, and only time until 2007 that the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending and regulations. FDR was killing off cattle and crops to keep supply slow trying to stimulate the economy. When people needed cheap food he was destroying it. There were other recessions similar to 1929, the one in 1920 was just as bad, but recovery was quick. FDR's regulations did not prevent future recessions, they still happened. FDR's policies he passed just compounded our problems and the problems we are seeing now are linked to them. They were not a big until now because 1. After the war every other country was rebuilding where we weren't, thus we had a head start on the global economy, which is why the depression ended then 2. It takes a couple generations until too many people become dependent on the federal government to really become a problem FDR was not a good president. His policies led to a slow recovery, and his policies are causing more problems. The Founding Fathers wanted a federal government with limited powers because they saw a time where future politicians will take advantage of it. FDR went against that and future politicians took advantage of it. FDR's policies have been destructive, not beneficial.
    1
  220. +Kyrie Irving I think the fact that we saw the slowest recovery ever is large enough. And saying correlation does not equal causation can easily be turned around you. You said FDR's policies prevented future depressions......well correlation does not equal causation. The great depression was unique in that it was the first time the federal government tried to "fix" the economy through massive spending and regulations. People wanted Wilson to do something during the 1920 recession and he did nothing. We recovered quickly. WW2 gave the government a reason to spend and invest. It has always been constitutional for the government to spend on foreign affairs thus it has always been a part of the economy. It also distracted FDR from domestic policies so that the federal government was not having a large role in it. The war forced investment instead of waste. If the waste was never there to begin with we would have never had a depression. "Another piece of evidence was that FDR reduced government subsidies to farms and the WPA, unemployment went from 15% to 20% in an instance." Correlation does not equal causation........actually I can give an explanation for that as well. FDR's spending was the first time the federal government tried to "fix" the economy. That lower unemployment was artificial. That is why there was a spike in unemployment after he pulled out. Today what we have seen is that people are wiser and understand history. That is why after the stimulus for the 2007 recession we did not see any recovery.
    1
  221. +Kyrie Irving It was a good source of information, I will give it that. What that video shows is the expansion of the federal government under FDR which I feel is the worst thing to happen under FDR. It made people dependent on the federal government. Milton Friedman said that we should follow the Founding Fathers' model in a limited government and keeping government as local as possible to ensure that government remains the servants instead of the masters. Instead, under FDR we went the exact opposite. As the guy said in the video we now expect the federal government to do things. That is a very scary thought to have that we have become so dependent on the federal government. As far as the New Deal ending the depression, I still feel it didn't. He mentioned subsidizes and when he stopped them unemployment went up. The reason why is because the first "recovery" from the initial subsidizes was artificial. That is why it crashed so quickly. I agree the war ended the depression. The war ended up being an investment for the US government, who always spent on foreign relations as listed in the constitution. It also distracted FDR so he no longer did destructive domestic policies. Spending on arms creation that other countries bought is an actual investment as opposed to paintings that no one cares about. In the end the worst thing to happen under FDR was our dependence on the federal government. People complain about government corruption and I say that the best way to end it is to limit the federal government. Talks of that means no more Social Security, no more Medicare/Medicaid, no more Department of Education and so on. People get scared at that point and don't want to limit the government. It is like the child that does not want to listen to their parents, so then their parents say "fine, go get a job and live in your own place and make your own rules". At least that is what my parents said to me as a kid. It quickly got me to follow their rules because they provided a roof over my head, or "welfare".
    1
  222. +Joyce Nielsen Bernie did not run earlier because this is his retirement run. He is a career politician that is retiring with a bang. If he were to win the presidency he would serve his time and retire while speaking rhetoric. If he loses he goes out like he is now, making noise. This is his victory lap for being a career politician.
    1
  223. +Ochoaj300 Bernie has been absent at higher percent of time on voting when compared to his peers. "He has worked in 32 consecutive years of elected office in order to fight for the working people in this nation and his home state of Vermont. " So he is a career politician. He absolutely refused to challenge himself. So what? I see that as a sign as laziness. I have done a lot of research on Bernie. Here is a guy that after all these years switches parties and runs for president. He has basically no chance of winning but he is still there making noise. This is nothing more than a retirement plan for him. Bernie doesn't care. He got his free meal as a politician.
    1
  224. +Ochoaj300 I sent a link on another comment. Let me know if you get it. Here is what it said "From Jan 2007 to Apr 2016, Sanders missed 160 of 2,894 roll call votes, which is 5.5%. This is much worse than the median of 1.6% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving." So I was wrong, it was the median. He is a career politician and thus the establishment. He wants to expand the powers of the federal government. This is the same federal government he complains about being corrupt and "rigged". He wants to give that federal government power over your healthcare and college education. He is giving corrupt politicians more bargaining chips so when he is done they can use it to screw us over. I don't support that at all. " He has challenged the establishment with his very liberal views and pushed the Democratic party to become more progressive. " And he is losing because he is lazy. "If he was a Libertarian or part of another party's guidelines, then I would totally understand where your coming from. But the things he believes and stands for have are the most progressive and liberal standpoints in our Congress so far." What he stands for is expanding the problems we currently have. Most of our problems stem from the federal government. Giving it more power will not solve anything "To say that Bernie does not care is a completely misleading statement because you are throwing his career in the garbage by saying that, and that is just shameful." He doesn't. If he did he would listen to the other side. His economic policies are crap and he wants to make the federal government larger which makes it more prone to being bought out and corrupt. He is doing all of this for his own benefits and you got fooled.
    1
  225. +Ochoaj300 I am not talking about the past months, I used that exact same source back in August to show the exact same thing. He does not show up to roll calls as much as his peers. There was that time near 2014 where he missed quite a bit. He is an established politician, what else has he done besides be a politician? He sided with democrats on several occasions. He voted for Obamacare when he could have easily said no unless it was universal healthcare. "I understand that you say that expanding the government would just expand the corruption, but you're looking at it in the current state, and not in the possible future state." The founding fathers saw the future state as well. Their solution was to limit all governments, especially the federal government. If the federal government has no power then it can't be bought. " Bernie wants to dismantle the Citizens United, which would end the ability for corporations to funnel money into political campaigns through SuperPACs." You can't do that because people have a right to donate their money if they want to. "Therefore, allowing public funding of campaigns." Which is allowing government to control funding instead of the people. If you had that Bernie would not receive a dime because the DNC would not give him any. "There's a reason why he wins in every general election poll against the Republicans. " But yet can't make it past the primaries. "He is a man of the people" Unless you are rich, white and straight. " and if you would actually take some unbiased time and read about the things he's done, then you would understand that as well." I am a moderate, and I am very fair at how I analyze things. Bernie is a fool. His policies will make our situation worse, not better. The people who are voting for him are doing so purely based off of emotions and not on any actual logic or reason. Your entire comment was just that. You are saying "he is different' or "he works for the people" and "he will end corruption". You never say how? How will he end corruption, especially after he is gone? It just amazes me how he gets support.
    1
  226. +Ochoaj300 He sides with big money, he just sides with big money when a bunch of fools are willing to give it up to him. With Obamacare is shows Bernie is not willing to go all the way. He will have no problem expanding the powers of the federal government but would not dismantle money in politics in the process. Now we have a bigger problem. " Look at the other democratic socialist countries in the world such as Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, etc, and tell me that they are manipulating their people" Those are countries of much smaller size and completely different societies. You really can't compare. Norway subsidizes their programs with oil. Canada has been doing fracking for a couple decades now. Denmark has mandatory military. France has double digit unemployment. You can't just simply say that "well those countries do it then so can the US." Not to be a jerk, but when I hear that I compare it to "murica is numba 1". It is an incredibly ignorant approach. Those countries are completely different. Even at that they still have problems. For example the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world. So why change? "On the topic of Citizen's United, don't you think it's unfair that millionaires and billionaires get to dump as much money as they want into the candidates they want in order for them to win?" I don't think so. To me it wouldn't matter who wins at the federal level if they had strict limitations on their powers. You are concerned with them getting money, I am concerned with what they can do when they get into office. Money in politics is nothing more than a symptom of a disease. That disease is a federal government with too much power. Limit the federal government and establish state rights and stronger local government (follow the constitution) and the problem goes away. "Also what makes you think that he is not being 100% publicly funded? " He received money from private citizens, no different than any other candidate. "You can see this because of the states that have closed primaries and caucuses, meaning that Independents cannot vote for the candidate of their choice" Just like publicly funded elections will prevent him from running. Also those are state laws. Maybe if his supporters were more involved in politics they would change their party stance sooner or vote in local elections as well to get state laws to change. What this also shows is a flaw in government. Government created those voting laws, so your solution in solving that is giving it more power? "What he is saying, is that it is time for the rich people and rich corporations to stop avoiding paying taxes" The top 10% pay 70% of federal income taxes (which used to be unconstitutional) even though they earn 40% of the income. The fact is that Bernie will make the problems we have worse. If you want to solve our problems then limit the fed., don't allow it to control our healthcare and education along with remaining corrupt.
    1
  227. +Ochoaj300 If Bernie makes college free I would advise you to avoid college because a college degree won't be worth anything.
    1
  228. +Ochoaj300 If Bernie makes college free I would advise you to avoid college because a college degree won't be worth anything.
    1
  229. I am sick and tired of the federal government messing things up and causing income inequality. That is why I am against Bernie Sanders.
    1
  230. +MrBigEnchilada "so there's inflation in all things, except wages," Actually wages have been going up as well.
    1
  231. +RainMirron Those numbers don't include increases in benefits such as healthcare. Businesses around that time started offering payments in benefits because they were 100% tax free. Around that time the payroll tax was expanded thus anyone who was given a higher wage meant that businesses had to pay a higher tax. They avoided that with benefits. It also doesn't include the fact that prices of goods and services have been dropping and the quality of those goods and services have been increasing. So no, wages have not been stagnate.
    1
  232. +Wolves And Sheeple Get ready for the cry baby excuses from the Bernie supporters
    1
  233. +Some Edgy Anime Fan Rules are rules. If those Bernie supporters paid more attention to politics they would have changed earlier or vote in local elections as well to change the rules.
    1
  234. Saying we are the richest country in the history of the world is a poor standards. Those poor school districts are still better than any school in Rome during the Roman Empire and they were the richest nation in the world during their peak.
    1
  235. +Ralph “Lee” the 4th It isn't about money. You can't eat money, you can't live under money, you can't keep yourself worm with money. You need resources and proper management of those resources to do that. Just saying we have money means nothing. As I said, the Roman Empire had a ton of money during their time but had far more problems then what we have.
    1
  236. To equal when the min. wage was first implemented it would be around $4/hr with no benefits.
    1
  237. +Greg Batmarx You cherry pick the areas it "works" (which is debatable) but leave out so many variables in why and how. Denmark has mandatory military, do you want that? Norway subsidizes their programs with oil. Bernie wants to get off of fossil fuels so that is out of the question. When people start pointing at other countries it displace a high level of ignorance. It is no different than the crowd of people who call Bernie a communist.
    1
  238. Bernie Sanders only pays their interns $12/hr. Also they provide no housing and only want those with a degree or those pursuing a degree. Sounds hypocritical to me.
    1
  239. +James Rowsell I know that. The point is that Bernie has no problem forcing others to pay their workers more, but he gets a free pass. Jan Helfeld called out Nancy Pelosi on the same issue when she did not pay her interns. Why does Bernie want to force others to pay more but he doesn't follow suit? And why does he hire those with a college degree already? Most internships are for those pursuing a degree. This isn't so much being common knowledge or not, it is calling out Bernie's hypocrisy.
    1
  240. +Kemal Cem Söylemez It doesn't matter. He needs to lead by example. He obviously isn't.
    1
  241. +James Rowsell A worker is a worker and the pure fact is that Bernie is paying his workers less than the min. wage he wants. He is also selective in the workers he picks which happens when one pays a higher wage. When a company pays a higher wage they will demand higher skills. That is why when the min. wage goes up so does teenage unemployment. But yet Bernie wants to solve that problem. In all I am being intellectually honest. Bernie is saying that this group of people have to treat their workers like this, but he doesn't. It is pure hypocrisy. And in some cases an internship is the only job one can do. That as opposed to college you can take courses and work when you are not taking courses. When I took my paid internship I had to be devoted to that and could not pick up another job. So it is not a silly point.
    1
  242. +Pill Cosby Ok, what if someone wants to work for McDonalds for $4/hr, and sees the missing money as a choice for getting a job, thus an investment?
    1
  243. +James Rowsell There are several reasons why I am against raising the min. wage and I can break it down easily. My problem is the hypocrisy. If Bernie had volunteers then why can't someone volunteer to work at Walmart? Say someone can't get a job so to prove their worth they volunteer at Walmart in hopes of getting a job later to get paid? That is no different than someone who volunteers at an internship. They lack skills and experience thus they put themselves in a position to gain skills and experience to get a job in the future and get paid more. In the end Bernie is being a hypocrite. He is hiring workers at less than $12/hr but wants other employers to pay $15/hr. Internships are temporary jobs, so are low wage jobs (min. wage jobs). Min. wage jobs are seen as temporary, entry level jobs, and stats show that with a small percent actually working full time, and most of them being young (under the age of 25). Internships are entry level jobs to gain experience and expand a resume. But yet Bernie, through the design of the law he has the ability to create, can pay his entry level workers less than $15/hr. But wants other employers to pay their entry level workers more. I bet if those same employers were to get representatives in office to lower the min. wage, or make them exempt from the min. wage, Bernie will get furious. But yet he has no problem being exempt from it.
    1
  244. +James Rowsell In the end an internship is an entry level, temporary position designed to give people experience to build a resume. That increases their chance of getting a better job. The same is with low wage jobs. They are jobs designed to give people with limited, if any, work experience to gain experience an build a resume to get a better job in the future. I bet Bernie, with his $12/hr internship, he 1. Is selective in who he hires. As in he will only hire the best of the bunch (shown with only wanting college students) 2. Is limited in who he hires and does not hire more workers due to him not being able to afford them The latter I have no numbers on. But my guess he does hire a limited amount That is no different then when the min. wage goes up businesses 1. Hire less teenagers and hire older workers with more experience 2. Hire less workers overall and cut their hours In the end Bernie is being a hypocrite.
    1
  245. +James Rowsell If you want me to break down why I am against the min. wage I can by simply saying that it kills jobs and raises prices. There is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage. And I say that being a moderate. Breaking it down you see that nothing positive comes from it at all. My argument is that Bernie is hiring workers but pays them less than $15/hr. He created a law that made him exempt from paying workers more. That is hypocrisy in that he wants to make a law that forces other places of employment to pay more, but not his due to a loophole of it being an internship. This is no different then tax loopholes he complains about. He is running a program that creates a jobs, but due to a loophole he can pay workers less. Now I will ask you, why did you volunteer for free? Because you wanted experience to move up. People are willing to work for a low wage at a place like Walmart because that allows them to gain experience and get a better job in the future. That is capitalism, people selling their labor for less to get a job and benefit. Someone volunteering at an internship is no different than someone wanting to work at a business for $5/hr. The problem is that the latter of the two is illegal due to min. wage laws. The former is legal due to a loophole. Now you say an internship is a training program. I agree to a point. When I first got my min. wage job in high school I had to go through training. Why can't a business pay their employees $4/hr during that training program and then afterwards pay them the min. wage? Yes min. wage jobs are temporary jobs, that is until you make the min. wage so high to where businesses refuse to hire new workers. That is called labor to labor substitution and hurts workers who are at a disadvantage, typically the young who are poor. Saying the average age of the min. wage worker is 35 years old is being deceptive. Around half of min. wage workers are 25 years old or less. Over 3% are over the age of 70. That skews the average age. 71% of min. wage workers are less than 30. That 35 years of age also comes from if the min. wage is $10.10. Only around 2% of min. wage workers work full time. Min. wage workers are part time workers either for 1. The young looking for their first job who currently have an empty resume 2. Someone working part time work for supplemental income 3. A retired person looking for busy work (hints those over 70 working) Min. wage workers are young, work part time, and temporary. Those are the facts.
    1
  246. +idwita "and the only reason you're getting real replies is people here think you deserve Bernie's presidency just like anyone else." So I deserve to live in an economy that would be under a depression? I deserve to live in an economy with little jobs, little wealth growth, and more federal government dependence? I personally want to educate Bernie supporters because in all honesty they are not too bright.
    1
  247. +Naga Sadow We still haven't recovered from the last recession. History has shown that when the economy is left alone by the federal government then recovery is quick. If Bernie comes in and tries to regulate the economy and spend then the economy will suffer leading to a depression. You claim republicans are known for one liners but as a moderate I realized that Bernie is the king of one liners (or more talking points, he rambles about nothing a lot of times). As a moderate I looked at both sides and realized that when broken down the ideas on the right actually work, and more importantly the policies on the left causes more problems. Bernie's policies simply won't work. You can give me any one of his economic policies and I can break them down showing how they won't work. That is why when he was asked simply how he expects to pay for his plan, or what the tax rate should be he can't answer. He himself realizes, he just doesn't want to admit it, or is in denial.
    1
  248. +Naga Sadow A wealth gap is good for a strong economy. A small wealth gap means little wealth. And happiness is completely subjective and can't be measured in any way. So asking who has the happiest residents is a dumb question. The US is arguably highly educated. We are near the top in productivity and we are number one in research and innovation in technology and healthcare. The US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world. If you remove murder and accidents the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Every country gets involve in foreign conflict. The US spends more money preventing violence then creating it. People fail to realize that but that is truth. Other countries require you to pay a fine if you don't vote. I hate to compare the US to other countries. The reason why is because the variables are to great. People who do compare the US to other countries end up cherry picking what they want to see and hear. When someone compares us to Denmark I say "oh, so you want mandatory military and no minimum wage then" which shows immediately how much they leave out.
    1
  249. +Naga Sadow The war and FDR's death is what ended the great depression. The largest injection of socialist ideas this country ever had is what turned a recession into a depression. Actually deregulation started after the war. Farmers we actually allowed to raise all their cattle and crops and not had it be killed off like it was under FDR. What also led to strong growth was the fact that every other country was rebuilding and we weren't after the war. But now they caught up we are starting to see these socialist programs cause the problems that basic economics said they would, along with what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid. You need to study some history, and I don't even listen to talk radio.
    1
  250. +Naga Sadow I agree we should reform our laws to keep people out of prisons It is arguable that the US has the best healthcare system in the world, but as I said before I don't like to compare the US to other countries. Every healthcare ranking I have seen is cherry picked and broad. As I said, if you remove murder and accidents the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Our schools are fine. They can be improved upon but they are not "shitty". And we have a large military budget compared to other countries because we are so large to begin with. There are 3 countries that spend more than us if you look at percent of GDP. Wealth has to be created. The average homeowner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth because they don't desire to own and run a business. A large wealth gap means more wealth is being created thus more wealth is available for people. If you think you need the government to educate you then you are in a world of trouble.
    1
  251. +Naga Sadow If you remove murder and accidents we are. That is why healthcare rankings are unreliable, it does not take into accounts other variables. The US is near the top in obesity in the world, but is above average in overall life expectancy. We keep out fat people with poor health alive a long time. That is why the US has arguably the best healthcare in the world.
    1
  252. +Naga Sadow As I said, remove murder and accidents and we are number 1. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/ Now for overall life expectancy, the world average is 71 ± 7 years. The US is at 78 years. Japan is at 81 or 82 years, around there. The US is above the world average and is within one standard deviation of the top country. That difference at that point is called noise for whatever reason.
    1
  253. +Naga Sadow Monaco is a country for rich tourist this is full of rich people. Do you really want to compare that to the US?
    1
  254. +Naga Sadow I told you, the differences are minute. The differences are mainly due to noise. As I said, if you remove murder and accidents the US is number 1 in life expectancy.
    1
  255. +Naga Sadow Socialized healthcare is good for basic check ups or if you are a pregnant woman, which are basic forms of care. But socialized healthcare is terrible for specialized care such a surgery or a MRI. You have longer wait times and lower quality of care. The ACA is going to make healthcare worse and more expensive.
    1
  256. +Naga Sadow As a moderate I look at both sides and I have seen that republicans have a strong argument than democrats. Democrats do what you just did, create some emotional based argument that when broken down mean nothing. You say republicans are about "we". I agree, you mean "we" as everyone who is not rich. You want to tax the rich more to pay for your healthcare. It is no different with other issues. Democrats pushed "we" as in "women's rights" when there is not one right men have that women don't. Same with gay rights. Democrats pick a group of people to run with to attract votes, that is the "we". Democrats don't mean "we" as in everyone, they mean "we" as in the people they want to run with. Republicans policies typically treat everyone as equals which is how it should be. And with healthcare available for everyone, with democrats it will be available to everyone except the rich. The rich and those politically connected to democrats will get better care. That is the "we" they want. Meanwhile the middle class will have longer wait times and lower quality of care. But "we" will all have the same quality of care, even though it will such.
    1
  257. +Naga Sadow Since the War on Poverty was created by liberals poverty has stagnated. Before that it was dropping. All this "free" stuff Bernie wants to give out screws over the middle class the most. The poor will get the "free" healthcare and "free" college and time off from work, and so will the middle class. The rich will have the resources to get better healthcare and better education and better vacation because guess what, they have the money to not only pay for the taxes for all the "free" stuff for those with lower income, but they can also pay for their own. The middle class cannot afford to pay for better healthcare or education because they can't afford to pay twice. Thus they will work harder then the poor but get the same quality of goods and services as the poor. That is why all these socialist policies supported by liberal screw over the middle class the most. Also I am not a conservative, I am a moderate. As a moderate I look at both sides. I have noticed that liberals play the same game you do. You claim to be for the poor and middle class but never get into detail why, it is all rhetoric. But when broken down like I just did you one realizes that liberals screw over the middle class the most. What I also noticed is that when I do that liberals end up name calling me by calling me a conservative, at the very least. At times I get called a bigot or racist or ignorant or something. I love how "liberal" self proclaim liberals are about obtaining new information and ideas.
    1
  258. I liked how Bernie showed all those working people when he himself has never worked an actual job outside of politics ever. Old Crazy Bernie appealing to emotions again to hide his economic illiteracy.
    1
  259. +Nathan Newbury Yeah, kind of pathetic. It isn't like he could even do anything. The people in PA can't do anything at all.
    1
  260. Clinton got just as many laws passed written by herself in a third of a time Bernie did. Look at some of Bernie's laws he tried to pass that are similar to what he wants now. They have limited sponsors and don't even get called to a vote. This guy is nothing but hot air.
    1
  261. Ok, what about the greed of the federal government? What about the greed of Bernie Sanders in wanting more power? It goes both ways Bernie.
    1
  262. Bernie needs to learn the difference between wealth and income. What is the "fair share"? What is a "living wage"? Saying talking points with no details or specifics really shows how Bernie is a career politician. The women pay equality issue has been debunked several times. Bernie needs to really study economics if he expects to be president.
    1
  263. Actually it won't save me a dime. I get my insurance paid for by my job. If I get if for "free" from the government then they won't pay me anymore but my taxes will go up. Also, is Bernie advocating for people just quitting their productive job and starting a worthless business? Man he is really pushing to destroy that economy.
    1
  264. Bernie needs to stop lying. Fracking is not a problem and people have been able to light their tap water on fire for decades long before fracking. Voting for Bernie is voting for a liar.
    1
  265. +Deeps ah Ah, the old "educate yourself" response. Typical of a regressive liberal. Also why do you not want to hear other people's opinions? Why do you want to be so myopic? Oh, I know why. Another characteristic of a regressive liberal is that they have to stay in their safe zone.
    1
  266. Hypocrisy. This woman is rallying with a guy who wants to use tax dollars to pay for healthcare but she does not take the initiative to be healthy herself. She needs to lose weight.
    1
  267. +Doulton Schweizer How liberal of you. I wouldn't expect anything else from a Bernie supporter.
    1
  268. Healthcare is not a right, and other countries don't consider it a right either. You don't have a right to someone's goods or services. Even at that the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world. What is radical is 1. trying to compare us to other countries of completely different societies 2. claiming our healthcare system in inferior to others Bernie needs to stop lying to the American people.
    1
  269. +Sam Bergman Read the book "The Business of Health" by John Schneider and Robert Ohsfeldt. I will link it in another comment because sometimes comments with links don't get seen. It is a book that breaks down how one can argue that the US has the best healthcare system in the world.
    1
  270. +Sam Bergman http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf It is honest research.
    1
  271. +Emine Dilek Did you actually read the book? It has citations from peer reviewed journals. It is not bias. You attacking the AEI is a logical fallacy, how about you point out where they are wrong. Also the AEI does not use my tax dollars for anything.
    1
  272. +Emine Dilek Do you even know what a peer reviewed published paper is? It is where you submit it to a journal and then experts in that field read it, review it, and make sure it is reliable data. "World health organization places the US at #37 in quality of healthcare " Which compares to countries like Malta and San Marino. A ranking that is so weak that it is not reliable. "I travel all over the world and did my own research" Then write a paper on it and get it published.
    1
  273. +Sam Bergman The WHO's list is unreliable because it compares the US to countries like San Marino. That is a country that is smaller than a lot of our cities and a major driving force of their economy is tourism-attracting rich people. That is not a valid comparison. Read the book I linked, maybe then you will see this issue differently. But considering how you think comparing the US to Malta is valid I doubt you will approach this issue with an open mind.
    1
  274. +MegaLaxMax "You'll see those CEOs taking in less money in no time" That is not true. If a CEO cuts pay it won't lead to an increase in workers' wages because as a whole CEOs dont' earn much. What happens instead is that a business will cut staff and hours. And even Bernie admitted that prices will go up.
    1
  275. It is a system design to prevent outsiders from coming and and potentially ruining the party. Look at what happened to the republicans and Trump.
    1
  276. Eric Gardner died because of high taxes.
    1
  277. +tonywardd Water is free, drink that.
    1
  278. +tonywardd Most cities has water that is free, especially if you rent (which most people who are poor do). If there is lead in your water then you need to go to more city meetings and bring that up. Bottle water is cheaper than soda.
    1
  279. +Joshua Lefor Think about it. These are the same people that are complaining about establishment politics and corruption in politics. So their only solution is to allow it to control our college education and healthcare. They are not too bright.
    1
  280. If $7.25/hr is a starvation wage then I support it considering how obesity is a problem in this country. Also, if it is such a "starvation wage", then how do we even have an obesity problem or how do people continue to survive off of it? Bernie truly is an economic illiterate.
    1
  281. +MrBeauty Maybe if you buy strictly off of the dollar menu.
    1
  282. +MrBeauty But they are not starving, that is the point.
    1
  283. +MrBeauty But Bernie said starvation wages. If he wants to talk about bills then he should call it something else.
    1
  284. +MrBeauty I read it, he doesn't. He just pulls numbers out of nowhere and says appeal to emotion rhetoric.
    1
  285. +MrBeauty Well that is a new site. Funny how these sites just keep appearing out of nowhere. " but it seems very clear to me that the rich have been getting richer" Saying that is being deceptive. Athletes are also getting more athletic, is that necessarily bad? Why are the rich getting richer? Well for several reasons 1. A CEO manages more people due to population being longer and people living longer. Thus they are paid more. If you were to take the top 6 executives from Walmart and spread all of their money to the 525,000 lowest paid workers of Walmart they will earn an extra $147 a year. That is it. Really puts a different perspective on how much CEOs really earn 2. Skilled Bias Technological Change look it up. But also consider how increased technology has improved everyone's lives. You are currently having a discussion on something that did not exist in it's highly efficient form 10 years ago. People are better off than they were a couple of decades ago. In reality everyone got richer Now those two reasons are not bad at all. Here are other reasons 1. Due to the regulations, inequality in the tax code, and welfare programs income inequality has grown. I do feel that is a problem (it is worth mentioning that wealth inequality is not bad, there is a difference between wealth and income). You have to realize the mentality of those who are well off. If you attack them they will attack back even harder. They work harder and are more creative in what they do. By taxing them higher, taking their money, and paying people money for simply doing nothing you create the environment where the rich just tells the rest of society to basically fuck off. 2. We have a very spoiled society. We have people who want money for nothing. People want a higher min. wage.....they want an unearned higher wage. People want "free college" and "free healthcare". They want things without earning them. People who think like that are typically not well off (or feel they are not well off) for a reason. Those that are rich did not make excuses or asked for handouts, they worked for what they got. Compare it to this. Say it is a race. Those who are begging for handouts don't run hard and instead sit there crying refusing to run. Those who do work hard, the rich, kept running and are pulling farther and farther ahead. Sure there will be slow runners and fast runners. Sure there will be those who got a head start, but sitting there moping does not catch you up. So saying the "rich are getting richer" is being very deceptive.
    1
  286. +Steven Doan Who?
    1
  287. +Flackaveli HD He is running as a democrat, so yes, he is a democrat. And you can call a shovel an ice-cream machine, but it's still a shovel. Bernie is a communist.
    1
  288. +Shaun Dabare FDR turned a recession into a depression. On your first comment, the top 10% pay 70% of federal income taxes while earning only 40% of the income. And our military budget is not at 50%.
    1
  289. +petelebu In the 60s black people had to sit at the back of the bus and use different drinking fountains. We were not better of if you are considering where we were when it came to rights.
    1
  290. +Shaun Dabare The recession was under way, under FDR we saw a depression.
    1
  291. +Shaun Dabare The fact that we had the slowest recovery ever in the history of our country up until now shows who bad he was. Every other recessions, except for two, we recovered from in around 5 years or less. We did so with little to no federal government action. We had a recession in 1921 that was just as bad as the one in 1929 and within a year we recovered because the federal government did nothing. The two that took the longest to recover from was the great depression and the one we are currently recovering from. Both times saw the federal government trying to "fix" the economy. It was the war that led to the recovery. FDR created a mess. There is a reason why the great depression was occurring under his watch.
    1
  292. +Shaun Dabare The federal government did a lot after the crash. Hoover created public work programs and public spending including spending on the Hoover Dam. FDR just added fuel to the fire. Economic crashes happen, it is a part of the evolution of the economy. You talk about regulations, what regulations do you want to prevent crashes?
    1
  293. +Shaun Dabare http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
    1
  294. +Shaun Dabare Paul Krugman is a known Keynesian economist. Of course he will support FDR. The simple fact is this, under FDR we saw the slowest recovery from a recession ever. The recession of 1921, the Panic of 1873, Panic of 1837, the recession of the late 80s and so on never took that long to recover from. It took around 5 years with little to no federal government involvement. Come 1929 and Hoover, then FDR did a lot and the recovery was around 10 years. It was the war that got us out. It always amazing me how people feel that FDR was great for the economy when under him we had a depression. Let me ask you, do you think Matt Millen as a good GM for the Detroit Lions?
    1
  295. +Shaun Dabare I told you, Hoover did a lot. The worst years were during that time because the initial recovery was artificial. That is why FDR turned a recession into a depression.
    1
  296. +Shaun Dabare There wasn't a recovery until the war. The second dip occurred because the initial "recovery" was artificial. He spent money that wasn't there and when he cut the economy crash because no real wealth was created. That is why FDR turned a recession into a depression.
    1
  297. +Shaun Dabare His polices prolonged the recovery creating a depression. Why has there never been another depression? Because in every other recession the federal government stayed out and allowed it to recover until 2007. Here we are 9 years later and still haven't recovered from the recession. "Why do you keep blaming FDR, because it was not his policies that caused the crash. It was Republican lack of regulation." One, what regulation do you want? Next, I blame FDR because his policies hindered the recovery. "If they had been no government interference, imagine the effects. " It would be like in 1921, done within a year. At worse like the Panic of 1873, done within 5 years, so done by 1934 at the latest. "The depression was softened as soon as FDR stepped in. When he cut back, it returned. " No, he created an artificial recovery that came crashing down due to no real wealth being created. "All that it proves is that he economy needs government spending." Spending isn't good, what's good is producing. If spending is good then why not spend $100 trillion a year?
    1
  298. +Shaun Dabare Ah, the Glass-Steagall argument. You do know that the Glass-Steagall repeal had little to nothing to do with the recent recession. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/ Even after Glass-Steagall was passed we still had recessions. If there had been on government programs we would have been fine. In fact FDR supported the AAA which forced cattle and crops to be killed, thus limiting food. "FDR's programs were meant to encourage employment. If he cuts spending, he cuts employment. " Ever heard of the story of Milton Friedman going to China to see a canal being dug up? I suggest you read up on it. We don't want jobs, we want wealth. "Instead of putting money in the military, " Which is actually a very small part of the federal budget, and is the most efficient federal program we have.
    1
  299. +Shaun Dabare I didn't prove your point. I said that it played a role along with many other variables. In short, the recession was still going to happen. What is making it worse is the federal government getting involved and doing the bank bailouts. It is clear you didn't read the article or understand them. Did you watch the Learn Liberty video I linked you about jobs? You don't create jobs out of the sake for creating jobs. You have to create wealth. The AAA literally eliminated food. And you are talking about government action preventing starving? The military is a small portion of the federal budget, around 20%. We use it to promote peace. I know ultra liberals feel our military just goes around blowing things up, but the reality is that we try to settle conflict in a non-violent way.
    1
  300. +Shaun Dabare "The 1999 changes to Glass-Steagall led to much bigger banks, but that was, at best, just one factor in the 2008 financial crisis." From that it is clear that pointing to Glass-Steagall is a stretch considering the other factors involved. So no, you are not correct. You can claim you are but the reality is you are not. If we didn't do bank bailouts the economy would have recovered quickly. "The Banks should be broken up, " Why? So if something becomes too big you just hold them back? I bet you wanted the smart kids in class to not be so smart as well while you were in school. The AAA literally destroyed food. "The creation of jobs means people have more money to spend," Which means nothing if there isn't anything being produced. You can't consume what you don't produce. That is why when FDR stopped spending the economy crashed again, there was nothing being produced from his spending. "20% of the budget is enormous. " No it isn't considering it is constitutional and we spend a lot more on unconstitutional programs. Also, the military is efficient where other federal programs aren't. "Yet we have no major enemies. " And there is a reason why, we push to promote peace. "We use it to promote peace? We try settling in non-violent ways? Are you kidding?" No. Our only major enemy are terrorists. We work with other nations to settle disputes off of the battlefield. The Iraq War saw less deaths than WWII, despite lasting over twice as long.
    1
  301. +Shaun Dabare Again, you didn't read the articles. What happened would have happened even with Glass-Steagall. "As their size was a significant proportion of GDP, if one failed, there had to be a bailout or the economy would fail. " They fail and a competitor takes over. We then recover quickly. " If Banks become to large, then if they fail, they will bring down the economy. " And a competitor takes over. " If you have no jobs, there is no wealth and no growth." We should push for a society with little jobs where a lot of things are automated. Working just to work produces nothing. You need to stop pushing for jobs. "More than the next 7 countries combined." Look at percent of GDP, there are three countries that are higher than us. "And we don't push to promote peace" Yes we do, or our allies will call us out. "We illegally invaded Iraq," No we didn't.
    1
  302. +petelebu Serious question, are you stupid or just playing word games?
    1
  303. +petelebu if you are not going to have an actual rebuttal I am just going to mock you like the fool you are.
    1
  304. +petelebu it was legal. Congress voted on it and approved the invasion. At the time there was thoughts of weapons of mass destruction. While the intelligence made a mistake, at the time it was justification to invade Iraq. The war was legal despite emotion attempts to say otherwise.
    1
  305. +Shaun Dabare Like I said, you didn't read the articles. The Glass-Steagall repeal was, at best, one of many factors involved in the crash.
    1
  306. +Shaun Dabare So you pull out the parts you want to hear and ignore the parts you don't want to hear? Also, with Glass-Steagall we still had recessions, around 6 to 7. The thing is that the federal government did nothing and allowed the economy to recover on it's own. With this recent recession what happened was the federal government got involved and did the bank bailouts which hindered growth. The recession was going to happen with or without Glass-Steagall, the problem was that we allowed the fed. government to try to "fix" it with the bailouts.
    1
  307. +Shaun Dabare You highlighted the quotes that suit your myopic mindset. You are ignoring the rest of the article. "With Glass-Steagall, we did not have any major recession, like the Great Depression or the 2007 Crash" And we haven't had one before Glass-Steagall either.....so what's your point? Here is what government involvement does. Throughout history we have seen multiple recessions like the one in the late 70s, one in 1921, the Panic of 1873 and the Panic of 1837. Every single recession except for two we recovered from in around 5 years or less. The on in 1921 was just as bad as the one in 1929. In of those recessions we recovered quickly from the federal government did little or nothing. The two recessions that took the longest to recover from was the one from 1929 and the current one (which we still haven't recovered from). They are the only two times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy through massive spending, taxation and regulations. If it was the other way around, if the federal government did nothing during 1929 recession and now then you will be all over that. Instead you are pleading and begging for more government. "There should not be government involvement in the first place, but for that to happen, the banks need to be broken up" Which is an oxymoron. That is pleading and begging for more government. They are the root of the problem, not the solution. No bank can pull a whole economy under. With competition smaller competitors will over take them. Yes there will be job lost and a recession, but it will be over quickly, that is the evolution of the economy.
    1
  308. +Shaun Dabare You skipped over the entire conclusion. Even Elizabeth Warren said that you can't point to just Glass-Steagall. People that do are doing so to simplify a complex issue. Even with Glass-Steagall the recession was still going to happen. You cherry picked what you wanted to hear. There were crashes before and during Glass-Stegall. You had on in the late 40s, late 50s, and late 70s. Recessions happen, that is the evolution of the economy. How we recover is key. The pure fact is that the slowest recoveries happened when the federal government tried to "fix" the economy following the recession of 1929 and 20007. You are hopping up and down yelling "deregulation caused the crashes" when you can only name one form of regulation, Glass-Steagall. And I have shown you that 1. Even with Glass-Steagall we still had recessions 2. There is a consensus that the Glass-Steagall repeal was not responsible for the crash of 2007 So unless you can dig up more regulations it is clear that it wasn't deregulation that caused the crashes, it was the evolution of the economy.
    1
  309. The "corrupt system" is purely a symptom of the federal government have too much power. So after Bernie expands the power of the federal government and is out of office, what is going to stop future presidents from becoming corrupt? Also new wealth goes to everyone, not just the rich. My smart phone has more computing power then what put a man on the moon.
    1
  310. +poptart 523 Stagnate wages are a myth. 1. Companies started giving raises through benefits such as healthcare benefits. That is because the payroll tax meant that if a business paid someone a higher wage then they will have to pay a higher tax. To avoid that they paid in benefits which are 100% tax free 2. Disposable income is rising. That is because increased technology and productivity. Goods and services are cheaper and more affordable. So while on paper people may seem to have the same wage, in reality they don't, they have a higher wage. 3. More women are entering the workforce. Women on average earn more due to their decisions (that is another topic in itself). But they are certainly holding the average down Also new wealth always grows at the top....so what? So someone on top has a 6+ cellphone, my Galaxy S5 is still better than any rich person had in the 90s. Now I am not saying it has all been good, but to say it has been bad is either lying or not knowing what is completely going on.
    1
  311. +poptart 523 Actually most corporations don't pay the min. wage, they pay more. That is why less than 5% earn at or below the min. wage. Businesses don't pay more because they simply can't afford it. Disposable income going up means people have more money. Saying it hasn't kept up with inflation shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Low skill jobs have not seen their productivity go up much if at all. Productivity has increased due to technology and those that invested int that technology or those who invented it has seen an increase in their wages. It is called Skilled Biased Technological Change. The burger flipper at McDonalds is not more productive. Even at that everyone has seen the gains of increased productivity. Increase productivity means goods and services a better and cheaper. I, as a graduate student earning only $24,000 a year has a Galaxy S5 and a reliable car, a nice laptop and other material goods that are better than some one who was rich had in the 90s. The same goes for others who are low income. So to say all the gains went to the 1% is simply not true. Wealth does not equal income. Until you learn about that we can't discuss income inequality. To answer you question of 400 families owning more wealth than .......Consider this. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. A homeowner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person does not have much wealth. The reason why there are people on the top that have so much wealth is because they are the ones that own a major business. For example the Walton family own half of Walmart. Not everyone desires to do that. Wealth inequality is actually good and is a sign of a strong economy. It means that wealth is being created where everyone benefits. Now if you want to talk about income inequality we can, but you have to learn the difference between income and wealth. Until you do that we can't move on. Lobbying of politicians is simply a symptom of a disease. That disease is a federal government having too much power. If you want to remove lobbying of politicians then remove the power of the federal government and give it back to the states. If the federal government has no power than it can't be bought. This is exactly why the founding fathers wanted a limited federal government to where it actually had zero control of the citizens and wanted more power to the states and local government. It was to prevent exactly that. Attack the disease, not the symptom.
    1
  312. +Henry TheGreatAmerican Domestic powers. That is how the country was designed. 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. The constitution placed limitations on all governments. "Whatever power it does have is not being used to benefit us average folks" So you don't like your police, roads, schools or a vast majority of your government programs?
    1
  313. Remember, if you are white you don't know what it is like to be poor. Vote for racism, vote for Bernie Sanders.
    1
  314. +Martin Bennett On planet Earth Bernie Sanders made a comment like that.
    1
  315. +thenotorious ong Name me one right that a white person has and a black person doesn't.
    1
  316. +Tim Arthur How can he send people to jail when they did not break any laws? Plus the tax on Wall Street Speculation won't work.
    1
  317. +Linda Mitchell So you just want to investigate people for no reason?
    1
  318. Ah, pay the "fair share". And "play by the rules" set by the president. I kind of had an idea that Bernie wanted to be a dictator. I am also anxious to see his glorious tax plan that will somehow pay for all of these free thing without increasing the debt.
    1
  319. +mauricev66 Fracking is not known to poison water. Most contaminates in water comes from poor piping. Canada has been fracking for decades and has no problems.
    1
  320. +Steve J I don't support Hillary but I don't understand how people support Bernie. So having the government control healthcare, education and more of our money is going to stop all this corruption?
    1
  321. +Tyler Ross Is that it? Damn. If it is that easy then sign me up.
    1
  322. +redxherring Nope, it would make corruption worse. Not only would that government now be corrupt, it will now control you healthcare, education, jobs, money etc.
    1
  323. +Tyler Ross No, I am suggesting we follow the constitution. We place strict limitations, as outlined in the constitution, on the federal government and give more power to the states. The more local government is the more people have control over it to see that it remains the servants instead of the masters. You have to consider this, too much government is just as bad as no government. What Bernie is pushing for is too much government. The reason why we have corruption is because we have a federal government with too much power. You need to stop being so radical. I know you are a radical because the second I suggested that Bernie's policies are not good you feel I support no government. To you it is one extreme or another. To me it is a moderate approach.
    1
  324. +Stephen Fun FDR turned a recession into a depression.
    1
  325. Why not $100/hr? Why support such a low min. wage? Also, Walmart supported a min. wage increase at one point knowing it will hurt smaller competitors.
    1
  326. So Bernie complains about exporting jobs, but he wants to raise taxes? This man is just flat out stupid.
    1
  327. +Vincent V " you don't even have a general idea of how modern economics works." While giving zero justifications. I think it is safe to say that I am correct here.
    1
  328. +Andstuff1000 Why did they outsource jobs? To avoid taxes.
    1
  329. +Vincent V "Reaganomics" Right away I know I am going to be having a discussion with a myopic fool. I find it ironic how you criticize me for not understanding modern economics but you go 30+ years in the past. "Did you know that some of those billionaires pay less taxes than their secretaries.  " Do you know why? Because they pay themselves less and put a lot of their money in stocks. The tax code is complicated, making it more complex will only make the situation worse. But raising taxes on the rich will cause them to move their money to avoid taxes.
    1
  330. +brandon Maes "those companies already move their money to offshore bank accounts." So the solution is tax them more so the move even more money? Income inequality exists due to our tax code where the top 10% pay 70% of taxes while earning 40% of all income. It also exist due to lazy people refusing to work and just asking for handouts. When you attack those who work hard enough they will find a way to pull ahead.
    1
  331. +brandon Maes "you overturn Citizens united to stop campain funding of large doners." So violate the constitution? "You make big business re-enter their money into the united states, or else you treat them as a foreign companies and tax their imports and exports at foreign rates" So decrease our wealth in this country? "and you don't allow them to barrow money from the federal reserve at 0% interest rates." How about get rid of the federal reserve.
    1
  332. +brandon Maes You solution is just tax the rich to death. If you do and they leave then don't complain when our country regresses.
    1
  333. +brandon Maes Citizens united is constitutional. You have a right to your property and speech. Corporations are ran by individuals. I also find it ironic how you are referring to the founding fathers who made individual federal income taxes unconstitutional. The only federal tax domestically was a tax on the states. Corporate taxes did not exist and neither did individual federal income taxes. So to respond to this "because what your saying is that it's okay for corporations to avoid paying any federal income tax but when a normal civilian doesn't pay them, we go to prison for 10+ years" I am saying both taxes should be at 0.
    1
  334. +Mr Brownstone Ok, what does the first link have to do with anything? Also Reagan is dead. He was president 30 years ago, move on. I took a shit an hour ago, are you going to blame the complex economy on that?
    1
  335. +Liam L. Not true
    1
  336. +Kira Knudsen If you look up how many earthquakes there have been in Canada you would see that the ones of highest magnitudes were before fracking. Also since fracking there has not been any significant change in the number of earthquakes in Canada. In my home state there was an an earthquake of high magnitude over 100 years ago. It has never happened since. These things happen, it is not due to fracking.
    1
  337. People are delusional. All Bernie does is throw out rhetoric to appeal to emotions. He is trying to explain how he is going to pay for it and he says phrases like "rigged economy" "paying taxes to subsidize (walmart)" "rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure" "fair share of taxes" What do those phrases mean? It does not answer the question of how he is going to pay for his programs. Are people this stupid to buy into this fool?
    1
  338. So let me see if I am understanding this correctly. Bernie wants to remove jobs from underdeveloped countries so they can't develop and thus become prone to radical groups like terrorist. But he will blame terrorism on climate change. He does not want to push people to take on higher skilled jobs to improve our society but somehow feels that we have enough resources to give away free college and healthcare. That despite our lack of professors, doctors, TAs and so on. That is Bernie's vision? I am not following his logic here.
    1
  339. +traydevon http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/16/bernie-s/fact-checking-bernie-sanders-comments-climate-chan/ There is climate change and terrorism. What is a "fair trade"? You are using subjective words now. Those developing countries have not jobs. Any job they can get is good. As I said, under developed countries are prone to being over taken by radicals. We were developing once, now we are developed and should push for higher skilled jobs.
    1
  340. +Kamron Grant Ever thought it also factors in personal life choices? A major problem with the poor is obesity.
    1
  341. +Sage Mantis The fact that he feels fracking is a major problem is enough for me. Also the fact that he is an economic illiterate.
    1
  342. +Jurassic725 One, what is a "red state" and a "blue state". What you consider to be one someone can make an argument against it. Another, this was the basis for state rights. The federal government was supposed to be limited in power and states were to have more freedom to manage themselves within the confines of the constitution.
    1
  343. Yeah, boo hoo. Sorry but you should have planned ahead. I am poor, I cut back. I wear shoes for over 3 years. Life is work, sorry. Fact is that Ann is not worth much in society. They are not worth much in the market and they have no friends and family to help them out. Sorry the truth hurts.
    1
  344. +John Mackler Well, why not $20/hr?
    1
  345. +mark pustilincov Typical liberal, wanting to tax and politicize everything.
    1
  346. +Last First Police: Locally ran and funded Roads: locally ran and funded and the ones that are funded and ran federally are constitutional and make up a minute portion of the federal budget Fire fighters: Around 70% of fire fighters are volunteers. Fire departments are locally ran and funded Schools: Guess what? Locally ran an funded.
    1
  347. +Last First Yes, I agree. I support those programs. I don't support the expansion of the fed. though.
    1
  348. +Last First Local programs are ran better and are not politicized as much as compared to federal programs. And pointing to them as an excuse to have government does not fly.
    1
  349. +John Mackler Those 500,000 workers can just get a job building bridges and roads or flipping burgers at $15/hr.
    1
  350. I guess a fool and his money does eventually get separated.
    1
  351. +fehzorz These are the same people that want the "rich" to pay for their healthcare.
    1
  352. People don't take Bernie serious, problem is that there are enough idiots in this country that will vote for this fool. The fact is, though, that if he were to win the presidency congress will do nothing to push his policies. And when I say congress I mean both democrats and republicans. He is viewed as an old man who just shouts crazy things. This is a guy were back in 1991 he spoke in front of congress with empty seats. The guy is a complete nut and got crazier as the years passed.
    1
  353. +Mr Brownstone If it is so popular than it can be done at the state level. The issue is that our federal government is not ran like that. Our federal government is not ran off of the majority telling the minority what to do. Also, if you were to break down those issues you will see that it is not as clear as you think. People may support medicare for all for example, but how it is implemented would be vastly different. That is what happen under the passage of Obamacare.
    1
  354. +Daniel McCoy Maybe he should do a TV ad instead of talking to empty chairs. The reality is that Bernie has a learning disability.
    1
  355. +Mr Brownstone Yeah, he raised money from idiots who are foolish with their money. That is why they are pushing for free shit.
    1
  356. +Mr Brownstone If someone wants to spend their hard earn money supporting an idiot then fine. But remember, these are people that are demanding rich people pay for their free shit. They are irresponsible with their money.
    1
  357. +Mr Brownstone What are you even talking about? You are bringing up topics that has nothing to do with the conversation? And you claim I have a learning disability? You are starting to sound like Bernie Sanders, bringing up topics that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
    1
  358. +Mr Brownstone The reality is that you are drifting and losing your mind. If you want to discuss facts we can, but you have to stay on topic and have to stop repeating the same thing over and over again. Doing those actions makes you look like you have a learning disability yourself much like Bernie Sanders. Remember, all Bernie does is repeat the same things over and over again, they are 1. rich people are bad 2. climate change 3. free shit
    1
  359. +Mr Brownstone "The reality is that you have a learning disability and you're losing" You, people won't take you serious if you just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. You sound like the crazy old guy outside that ghetto gas station mumbling to yourself at that point. This is the exact reason why people laugh at Bernie Sanders. This is why there is a Facebook page called Economic Illiterates for Bernie Sanders. This is why republicans laugh at the idea of a Bernie Sanders presidency. He acts like you do. A little advice for you, if you ever want to make it in life you have to have maturity and not act crazy.
    1
  360. +Mr Brownstone Ok, I am going back to work now. I actually have a job and a career and success in life. Enjoy your "free shit" off of my dime if Bernie wins. Now who is the real loser there.
    1
  361. +Mr Brownstone Thanks. Just remember that you are supporting a candidate that forces the government to take from those who work and give to you who clearly don't work.
    1
  362. Bernie got smoked. I guess people in this country are not as dumb as I thought (so far).
    1
  363. Remember, Bernie said poor people are to blame for being poor since they don't vote.
    1
  364. +Kräzekuchen 23 When he said poor people don't vote.
    1
  365. +Kräzekuchen 23 I did interpret that. He is supposed to be for the poor but yet people don't go out and vote for him. I guess they felt someone will go out and vote for them. As a whole it is Bernie making excuses because who needs responsibilities.
    1
  366. +Kräzekuchen 23 Bernie is a douchebag. He lies to the American people and simply makes excuses. Him losing is great for the US.
    1
  367. +Kräzekuchen 23 Saying terrorism is directly related to climate change. Pushing the false narrative that women are paid 79 cents to the dollar compared to men If you are white you don't know what is it like to be poor Wanting to ban fracking when the risks are minimal. Banning fracking will raise energy prices while killing jobs Saying healthcare is a right when it isn't I can go on if you want
    1
  368. +Kräzekuchen 23 Bernie said that climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism in the Nov. 14 debate in Iowa. Bernie is at least being deceptive in the 79 cents to the dollar stat. It is basically lying with statistics. There is an earnings gap, but that is due to women taking on less skilled jobs and less dangerous jobs. Around 90% of job related deaths involve men. In the debate in Flint he said the comment about how white people don't know what it is like to be poor. Fracking has risks but it isn't bad for the environment, especially when property measures are taken. Banning it will kill jobs and raise energy prices hurting us a lot economically. Healthcare is not a right. You don't have a right to other people's services or goods. The US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world as is, but of course he does not bring that up. He simply says that other countries do it and that is it.
    1
  369. +Kräzekuchen 23 Terrorism comes from radicalism. Bernie lied. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/16/bernie-s/fact-checking-bernie-sanders-comments-climate-chan/ What Bernie said about white people not being poor is pure racism in my book. Fracking has minimal effects on the environment at most. Fracking has been going on in Canada for decades with no major harm. It is just fear mongering excuse to push an agenda. The US system is arguably the best in the world http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf The main problem is price mainly due to actions from the federal government. ", imagine if you're sick and can't get treatment because you're to poor to afford it," Imagine you are sick and can't get care because the government refuses to give it to you.
    1
  370. +Kräzekuchen 23 At the very least he dramatized it. His foreign policies are a joke because he feels that ending climate change will stop terrorism basically. If Bernie feels that there are white people that are poor then why did he say what he did in that debate? Fracking has risks, but they are minimal and right now have not shown to do major, if any harm to the environment. In other countries they don't get healthcare due to low quality or long wait times. So yes, in those countries they are refused healthcare off of rationing. At the very least they are comparable to us.
    1
  371. +Kräzekuchen 23 It doesn't matter if he dramatizes it. His foreign policies are a joke. That mixed in with him wanting to end the trade deals makes him look like a fool. Bernie knew what he was saying. What he said about white people not being poor is racist and his supporters (who typically call others racist like Trump) were quiet on that one. If anyone else would have said it they would have cried bloody murder. That wasn't careless, that is showing his true colors. So you are wanting to ban fracking off of some mythical disaster? I gave you a source on other countries and healthcare.
    1
  372. But yet Bernie wants to eliminate jobs for coal miners.
    1
  373. +ectogamut I did listen to the video. He said at that time "money will magically appear out of my unicorn's ass and so will jobs after I wreck the local economy"
    1
  374. +Young World Playing the victim card is easier to do.
    1
  375. +Jeremiah Howell A. Not everyone wants to get a high paying job. But people should push to better themselves. Also, as others get better jobs the economy and society get better and everyone benefits. That engineer creates a new piece of technology that makes goods and services cheaper and better B. Most low wage workers don't work full time. You are paid what you are worth. It is up to you to increase your value or find a way to save money. C. You can't consume what to don't produce. If Walmart workers were paid more prices will go up because their labor will be over valued in that it does not generate that much wealth.
    1
  376. +Jeremiah Howell A. I know we need a variety of workers. But the reality is that when left alone economy always gets better and so does society. Creating policies that artificially moves the economy actually hurts poor people. For example, the min. wage raises prices and kills jobs. Now those on the bottom are worse off. B. According to the BLS only 2% of min. wage workers work 35 hours or more, what they consider full time. With low wage jobs if we had a society where they were done by the 1. youth 2. retired 3. people doing work for supplemental income Then we are fine. And for the most part that is what it is for until you mess with the economy. C. As I said, the vast majority of those who earn the min. wage are not working full time. And over 80% of those who earn $9.50/hr or less are not poor. That is because they live in a household where they are not the primary earners. Very few who have kids are trying to raise them off of the min. wage. You are creating these horror stories that don't exist or don't mean anything in economics. D. It is not Walmart's fault that their workers refuse to get better jobs or improve their lives. Walmart does not have to hire those people. I am sorry, but to place that blame on Walmart is rather ignorant.
    1
  377. +sayyouwantthis "but do NOT assume you can stay at home because "oh, someone else will take of it for me."" That is the mentality of Bernie supporters. Why work when someone will do it for them? Hooray socialism.
    1
  378. +Success in the US But yet he is losing.
    1
  379. Bernie and his supporters need to take some lessons in economics. Let us run some basic math here. The top 6 executives of Walmart, Bernie's favorite company, earned $77 million a year. There are 525,000 employees in Walmart that earn less than $25,000 a year. If those executives were to earn $0 and spread their money to the 525,000 employees they would earn an extra $148 a year.......that's it. Forget economics, Bernie Sanders supporters need to learn 2nd grade math.
    1
  380. +billy .johnson I earn $25,000 a year, so I am not well off. " If you work 40 hours a week," Why 40 hours? That is arbitrary. I work more than that. Also, most low wage workers don't work 40 hours. Only 2% of min. wage workers work over 35 hours a week.
    1
  381. If you are here legally then nobody has a problem. But if you are here illegally then it becomes a problem. How about you ask the native americans what happens when you don't control immigration.
    1
  382. The debate was pathetic. Constant fear tactics used by all three individuals. And all three candidates seem to want to destroy college education.
    1
  383. +chickendinner2012 Actually no where does he show how it will save trillions. Bernie, and his campaign members have yet to counter the WSJ article showing it will spend $18 trillion over 10 years. Clinton cited those numbers as well and Bernie could not counter. Bernie has no plan.
    1
  384. +chickendinner2012 You see that is brought up all the time but saying universal healthcare would save money is like saying Batman can beat Superman. It is a hand waving argument that even Bernie can't get into detail on. I have been to that website, I see all rhetoric and no specifics. So again, Bernie has no plan.
    1
  385. +chickendinner2012 Healthcare cost in the US is high mainly due to policies set by the federal government. It is arguable that the US has the best healthcare in the world. If you remove murder and accidents the US is number one in life expectancy. Other countries lack in quality, that is how they have low prices, you get what you pay for.
    1
  386. +chickendinner2012 Based off of what?
    1
  387. +chickendinner2012 I rather go bankrupt than die like what happens in other countries. Also one problem we have in this country is being over medicated. Too many people are simply taking drugs instead of using alternative methods to solve their problems. In Europe people wait a long time and at times die.
    1
  388. +chickendinner2012 Actually the US is number one in responsive care, thus it provides faster help.
    1
  389. +chickendinner2012 Not really. If you remove murder and accidents we are number 1 in life expectancy.
    1
  390. +chickendinner2012 Murder and accidents are not connected with healthcare which is why when you remove them you get a more accurate picture of the healthcare situation in the US.
    1
  391. +yatesy117 How is Trump a racist?
    1
  392. +Matthew Belzer When did he say Mexicans are racists? And right now there is a problem with terrorism and Muslims, something needs to be done. Not allowing them in is a bit extreme but considering how the other side will call you racist for anything going to the extreme is not a bad idea.
    1
  393. +MrJc9600 So you will take a depression every single time?
    1
  394. +MrJc9600 So things that caused the depression
    1
  395. +Matthew Kitson I already passed US history and I learned more outside of it.
    1
  396. +MarxNightmare The recession started prior to FDR. FDR's policies turned it into a depression. In 1920 we saw a similar crash and with no federal government action we saw a recovery. FDR tried to "fix" the economy, the first time ever the federal government tried to fix the economy and guess what.....a depression happened.
    1
  397. +MarxNightmare FDR put forth a "stimulus" that created an artificial recovery. We saw growth and unemployment drop. This was the first time the federal government tried to "fix" the economy so the subsidizes FDR was pumping in the economy gave an artificial recovery. The second they stopped it the economy crashed again causing the depression. if left alone we would have recovered for good within a year. Instead FDR created an artificial recovery that led to the depression. In 2007 we had a recession and the federal government tried the same thing in stimulating the economy. This time it did not lead to growth. The reason why is because investors and businesses know that the stimulus is artificial thus it lead to no growth because once the federal government stopped another crash would have happened. But in 1933 and 2007 the federal government trying to "fix" the economy led to a slow recovery.
    1
  398. +MarxNightmare Look at the history of recessions in the US. Every other recession in the US took around 5 years or less to recover from with little to no federal government action. The recession of 1929 would have been recovered from in 1934 or 1935 if left alone. Instead FDR tried to "fix" the recession and what happened was that it turned into a depression. That is why FDR turned a recession into a depression. The federal government did little to nothing during the Panic of 1873 and the Panic of 1837 and in around 5 years we recovered from that. But FDR, for the first time tried to "fix" the recession with spending and regulation and it is of no surprise that it turned into a depression. I am basing my argument off of fact and previous recessions.
    1
  399. +TheAnimationers The US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world and the best university system.
    1
  400. I am an American, Bernie is not listening to me. I just did my taxes and made $23,000 last year, Bernie is not listening to me. I guarantee you if I were to approach Bernie and ask him tough questions he will berate me like he berates rich people with his rhetoric.
    1
  401. +Disentropic Because I will ask legit questions that will expose the flaws of his plans. Take the min. wage for example. I will ask this. "Mr. Sanders. You are pushing for a $15/hr min. wage which you call a "living wage". The immediate flaw of the min. wage law is that you are enforcing how much is paid per hour but not per week. So if someone is earning $15/hr, the "living wage", but only work 5 hours a week, is that enough income for them to live off of? They are earning a "living wage". Why don't you push for a law that removes that flaw such as abolishing wages and enforcing a "living salary"?
    1
  402. +deana mccombs But Bernie is calling $15/hr a living wage despite if someone is working low hours. Also if he raises the min. wage to $15/hr and someone was working 15 hours at $7/hr but then gets their hours cut to 5 hours, are they better off? In Hartford, CT a woman at a doughnut shop got her hours cut from 35 hours a week to 27 hours a week then the min. wage went up. But the main point is that Bernie wants to enforce how much is paid per hour, not per week. How does that lift people out of poverty if businesses still control how many hours one works? This is similar to the question he avoided in Vegas when someone asked how does he prevent businesses from just raising prices.
    1
  403. +Disentropic What if there is not another part time job available because there are others out there taking it? Or what if the hours are not there because businesses, in effort to save money, decide to close down their doors a couple hours earlier? The pure fact is that when broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage. The immediate flaw is that you are enforcing how much is paid per hour, not per week. And the problems just grow from there. Bernie has been challenged in the min. wage argument before and he could not come up with a response. The reason why is that in the end he can't even support his idea. You are right in that businesses won't will raise. They will, but first they will cut hours and employment. That has been seen. The min. wage does nothing to help society and does nothing but harm.
    1
  404. +Nicky Tech Those jobs will stop if the price of labor becomes too high. It is basic economics. Small increases have done little beyond noise in the massive economy, but an over 100% increase as Bernie wants will.
    1
  405. This is a retirement party for him. He is a career politician and running for president is his retirement party. He doesn't care as long as he gets on stage and shout his rhetoric and hear the cheers of idiots. He is just having a blast.
    1
  406. That sounds good, now how do you do it?
    1
  407. Bernie supports creating gangs and using force to silence people he does not agree with. Look at his supporters and what happened in Chicago the other night. Bernie needs to tell them to not act like idiots. He won't because he supports such actions as part of the "revolution".
    1
  408. +Anonymous11243 I know he never told his supporters to do that, but he does have a responsibility to tell them to stop.
    1
  409. Uh Bernie, capitalism has already taken on the fossil fuel industry. From capitalism you have buildings, cars and appliances that are more energy efficient. And companies are going to more energy efficient. We don't use alternative energy sources as much as we do because they are not that efficient. Bernie needs to stop being so stupid.
    1
  410. +Doug21 He is a fascist, or a communist. You take your pick. Either way if he got his way this country will fall apart.
    1
  411. Bernie is a nut.
    1
  412. +Bernie Sanders Nope, just exposing the truth.
    1
  413. The poor are an easy target to get vote from. Promise them free shit and they will come your way.
    1
  414. +Humanity NEEDS to die! First, who is "Fucks news asshole"? Next, Glass-Steagall was not the reason why the recession happened. Learn some facts.
    1
  415. +musical trak People are poor for a reason and it mainly deals with their laziness.
    1
  416. Bernie flew hours to get to Rome pumping CO2 in the air to do something he really has no business doing. Way to fight climate change Bernie.
    1
  417. +Sam Bergman I am not the one making ridiculous claims how climate change is causing terrorism.
    1
  418. +Victoria Linthicum No, he said that terrorism is directly linked to climate change which is not fact.
    1
  419. +Victoria Linthicum Why do you support a liar?
    1
  420. +Tyler Peterson And under FDR a recession turned into a depression.
    1
  421. +Paul Kent Every recession except for two were recovered from in around 5 years or less. We did so with little to no federal government actions. The two that took the longest to recover from is the one we are currently in (8 years so far) and the great depression. FDR took over 4 years after the recession started. If left alone we would have recovered. Instead he decided to spend and add new regulations which prolong our recovery to ultimately it took the war and his death to recover from. FDR turned a recession into a depression.
    1
  422. WWII forced the federal government out of domestic spending and the economy and shifted their focus to what their main job is, foreign affairs. FDR turned a recession into a depression and is a great example how Keynesian economics does not work. It never ceases to amaze me how people thought FDR was good when under him we had a depression.
    1
  423. The recession was under way with slow recovery due to actions by Hoover, such as government spending. This country has seen multiple recessions and every single one of them, except for two, we recovered from in around 5 years or less with little to no actions by the federal government. That includes the one in 1921 where Hoover was asked to come up with a plan to "fix" it. When he came up with it the recovery was underway so the federal government ended up doing nothing. The two times we saw slow recovery was during the great depression and the one now. Both had times when the federal government did a lot of domestic spending. If spending was so important then under Obama we should be seeing a boom. We haven't even seen a recovery. FDR expanded what Hoover did hindering growth so much that a depression took place. The war got us out because it forced the federal government out of domestic spending and purely on spending it is allowed to do according to the constitution, mainly on foreign affairs and the military. Every other country was at war thus the US spent on things that other people valued which is how wealth is generated. Spending just to spend does nothing, you have to generate wealth. Wealth only exists if people perceives something to have value. In this case foreign nations valued weaponry thus wealth was created. FDR turned a recession into a depression. If it wasn't for the war we would have never recovered.
    1
  424. It started out as a recession. It became a depression due to actions by the federal government hindering recovery.
    1
  425. We had a similar recession in 1921. The federal government did nothing and within a year we recovered from it.
    1
  426. The US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world, so right away these two are lying. If you don't want people to worry about healthcare when they change jobs the get rid of the payroll tax. With that companies will pay in actual money instead of healthcare insurance. Also the US is in the top 10 in obesity, if people want to have a great body they should start with living a healthy lifestyle. Bernie needs to stop lying. But what I find to be the funniest part of this video is when Justin said "Bernie is a once in a lifetime guy". So he wants future politicians who have a history of being corrupt to now control our healthcare? Because you know you are not going to get another Bernie in your lifetime but instead more of the same established politics.
    1
  427. Rome was wealthy and Rome has slaves. What's my point? Just because we are wealthy does not mean everyone gets whatever they want. Bernie is an idiot.
    1
  428. Bernie is not only economically illiterate but is also anti-science. Bernie's goal is to punish workers and make us more dependent on the government.
    1
  429. +Sumi Xavier Hey, ignorance is bliss. It doesn't matter because Bernie lost.
    1
  430. +Sumi Xavier You eventually have to learn to give it up.
    1
  431. +Sumi Xavier Bernie fans are delusional.
    1
  432. The civil rights movement was 50 years ago. Racism only exist among the most ignorant that no one takes serious, or those who play the race card that unfortunately people do take serious. Force integration is just as bad as forced segregation.
    1
  433. Sanders is losing because he supporters feel that someone else will go out and vote for them.
    1
  434. +Juan Ayala His supporters are young and as they age they will support socialism less and less. No different then the hippies in the 60s.
    1
  435. Buffy Lukachko What is wrong is your sister refusing to better herself to earn more money, or finding a way to cut expenses. The basic fact is that businesses can't afford higher wages.
    1
  436. Buffy Lukachko If that is the first job that she got then fine, she needs to find a way to cut expenses though. Businesses simply can't afford higher wages, that is a pure fact. "Do you always look down upon service workers , friend ? These jobs are a vital part of the world you and I live in" They are not vital, or they will get paid more. If they got paid more prices will go up and I won't eat out anymore. The term "living wage" is subjective and means nothing.
    1
  437. Buffy Lukachko The actual min. wage is $0.
    1
  438. Jason Cihlar She can look for roommates or ask friends and family for help. She can move in with family members. That is a problem we have in this country, people don't want to help, they just want others to pay.
    1
  439. With what Bernie said in the beginning the pure fact is that people simply want to mind their own business and have fun.  They don't want to constantly dread on the issues.  This is one reason why the founding fathers wanted a limited federal government and more state rights.  There is a need for government, but with smaller, more local government, and a means to control it (the constitution) you can have a system that works.Bernie wants to expand the size of the federal government making it easier for it to become corrupt and do unethical things under the radar to where the citizens can't see it.  Bernie wants to compound our problems.
    1
  440. What a dumb video. Stop playing the race card. Maybe if Eric Garner would have corporate with police he would still be alive. Or maybe if taxes weren't so high then he will not be selling cigarettes and he will still be alive. But of course using emotions and ignorance is easier than using logic and reason.
    1
  441. +JDPoZ Walmart does not pay more because they simply can't afford to. You have to remember that they have to keep shareholders happy as well.
    1
  442. Only took one minute to get to "millionaires and billionaires". So what gives Bernie the "god given right" to run the country? He complains about income inequality but never considers about power inequality. Why should he, and and federal government have all the power? Plus, he is talking about division. His speech is an us vs them motivation. Off course I would not expect much from an economic illiterate.
    1
  443. The term "living wage" is subjective and doesn't mean anything. It is a political phrase designed to appeal to emotion and has no actual meaning when it comes to policies. But of course, considering how Bernie Sanders is an economic illiterate, it is of no surprise him and his followers don't understand that.
    1
  444. This shows that Bernie 1. hates the poor 2. hates progress He hates the poor because he hates it that poor countries get a chance to have jobs and develop. He hates progress because he wants to hold onto archaic jobs and don't support pushing people to take on higher skilled jobs that generate more wealth. Bernie would have been against the invention of the tractor in the 1800s because it killed jobs.
    1
  445. +cynopt They are developing nations. We were developing once which is why we had jobs like that. We are not anymore. Those jobs are archaic. Why hold onto them if they can go elsewhere and benefit other countries? Also, if you want those jobs to stay in the US longer (they will eventually leave no matter what), then you need to lower regulations and simplify taxes. The phrase "living wage" to me displays a high level of ignorance. Minimum wage laws enforce how much is paid per hour, not per week. If someone is earning $50/hr you will most likely say they are earning a "living wage". But if they are only working 5 hours a week, are they earning a "living income"? To me, a more direct approach to push for people earning enough money to live off of is to push for a "living salary". The pure fact is, though, is that the concept of the min. wage is asinine to begin with. The supporters of it can't fathom the flaws of the min. wage like I just laid out and what they should be pushing for instead. I did but I am also smart enough to realize that min. wage laws are harmful.
    1
  446. Bernie is an economic illiterate and will make the current situation we are in worse. Anyone who endorses him clearly is clueless.
    1
  447. +timfidotru "emulate the economic conditions of existing countries" You cant' compare us to other countries due to a large amount of differences involved, mainly societal. Just because something "works" in one country doesn't mean it will work elsewhere. " countries that do much better in those areas than the USA." Even if you are to make a direct comparison of the US to other countries (as I just said you really can't) you will see that those countries are not better off than the US. Arguably they are worse. For example the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world. So if your arbitrary standard is to look at other countries when we should follow what we do in healthcare. "To say that his proposals are unrealistic is highest form of either unawareness or bias." Actually no. Making a comparison to other countries is the highest form of unawareness or bias. You are taking a complex issue and limiting it down to 1. they are countries 2. people live there Here is where your argument falls apart 1. Those countries are not doing much better than us is you want to make a direct comparison. As I said the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world. To say they are doing much better than us is displaying ignorance 2. In reality you can't compare. Which country do you want to follow? Germany who tracks their students and by force of law prevents people from going to college? Denmark who has mandatory military? Norway who subsidizes their programs with oil (meaning we will have to drill and frack more)? Tell me, which program? Never mind that a lot of those countries have small populations and little diversity. So it isn't that Bernie is an economic illiterate, but he is a nut as well.
    1
  448. +Waqar Qureshi So Bernie wants to rebuild a system in a country of 300+ million people? Also, last time the system was drastically rebuilt we had a war.
    1
  449. +Shaydon Bodemar People are delusional. They think Bernie can save them all. What I find to be kind of funny is that Bernie supporters complain about corruption and establishment politics. Now imagine that exact same government and it controlling healthcare, college education, infrastructure spending, jobs, more of our money and so on. As in somehow that will end corruption.
    1
  450. +Kang5030 We are not a democracy.
    1
  451. +Shinji Kurosaki "go read a damn book" Which book? Mein Kempf, Communist Manifesto? Saying "read a book" really shows your ignorance.
    1
  452. +Shaydon Bodemar Yep, because ol' Bernie will be able to change it all while riding in on his unicorn.
    1
  453. +bstotts01 Change government to what? All Bernie wants to do is expand it. We have the blueprint to have a strong system, it is called the constitution. Bernie wants to make us a communist country.
    1
  454. +SportsGuy2338 But remember, we can't have division in this country.
    1
  455. +rea sanka There are healthy ways to deal with stress. If getting drunk and drugged up is your way of dealing with stress then you are poor for a reason.
    1
  456. +rea sanka While I am not in poverty I do not have a high income. I was raised in a poor household for the first 8 years of my life. Stress exist in a lot of ways, even the rich have stress in managing a business. I deal with a lot of stress as a grad student. I manage by having healthy activities instead of drugs and alcohol. That is the difference between someone who is successful and who isn't. That is how my family got out of being poor. That is how I am on my way to earning a PhD where others remain in poverty.
    1
  457. +Josephine Thornton Luck had nothing to do with it. It is simple. Work hard and you will be fine. Some people love to make excuses and they are the ones who remain poor. Others find a way.
    1
  458. What's good about Bernie? What's good about supporting a system that will make our country worse?
    1
  459. +Enzo Niebuhr Water is basically free. Don't buy bottle water.
    1
  460. +Enzo Niebuhr Maybe you should rally with your local government to get clean water.
    1
  461. The Walton family own half of Walmart. That is why they have so much wealth. So what is your solution to that? Force them to give up parts of Walmart? It isn't Walmart's fault that their workers refuse to get a higher paying job. Walmart can't pay more because they simply can't afford it.
    1
  462. A little history lesson, federal income taxes were unconstitutional before 1913 and before that year the vast majority of individuals and businesses paid $0 in federal income taxes.
    1
  463. Yep, liberty-freedom. Freedom from the government.
    1
  464. +Ice Wafer Plus, the economy is more complicated than that. You using the phrase "living wage" shows how little you understand economics.
    1
  465. +Ice Wafer What is the "basic standard of living"? All those phrases are just rhetoric. I bet my "basic standard of living" is very low compared to others. The flaw in the min. wage is that while you are forcing how much is paid per hour, you are not forcing how much is paid per week. So you raise the min. wage and hours get cut, then what?
    1
  466. +Melika Sasani You can't consume what you don't produce. If people had more money but productivity is the same then all you have done is increase the supply of money without increase the supply of goods and services. That means the value of money drops (higher prices). You also have this false thought that businesses are not spending, they are. They are investing. What grows the economy more, a business investing to grow and create more jobs, or some poor person with a couple of extra bucks buying egg noodles instead of raman noodles? Plus you don't need to stimulate demand, due to competition demand exists. People demand better goods and services so businesses invest to create them at an affordable price. But if the good and services are not there then you can't consume them. Thus raising the min. wage does not create jobs.
    1
  467. +Halldor Karvel So should I be allowed to piss in public?
    1
  468. +sweetbizil Ok, how about just letting my penis out of my pants for air?
    1
  469. +sweetbizil Yes it is. My ass needs tanned as well. How about I just lay naked in the park and shine some sun where the sun don't usually shine.
    1
  470. +Johnyliltoe Maybe I will. Or maybe women should go in private to breast feed. It isn't that hard.
    1
  471. +woodsprout I feel it is pretty important to give my ass some sun and my dick some air. The person breast feeding can go someplace private or not have a kid at all.
    1
  472. +woodsprout It isn't different than sunbathing. You are not exposing yourself in a sexual way. You are exposing your body to sunlight. At that point there is no difference between that and breastfeeding.
    1
  473. +Zayah V Taking a piss and natural and non sexual. I guess I will just start peeing outside.
    1
  474. +Man O Ok, fair enough.
    1
  475. Bernie just released his "medicare for all" plan. He is raising taxes on the middle class which is going to be a death sentence for him. He is going to make the pay checks for middle class less. I knew this will happen. Now the real fun of watching Bernie fall apart begins. I hope he wins the primaries because watching him fall apart and get embarrassed will be fun.
    1
  476. And Bernie's retirement party continues.
    1
  477. +abrahamchapman You are not getting it. If Walmart were to pay their employees that much then value of stocks will drop. Shareholders will sell back their shares causing Walmart to go bankrupt. Walmart is as big as it is because of shareholders. If they did not exist then Walmart will be as big as Hy Vee or Raley's. It will only exist in Arkansas.
    1
  478. +Jeremiah Howell One reason why small companies suffer is because of government regulations like the min. wage. Walmart supported a min. wage increase knowing it will hurt smaller competitors. Walmart also provides a variety of goods at a low price at convenient times and locations. It caters to the consumers when other companies can't.
    1
  479. +Jeremiah Howell 1. http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/ 2. Walmart can provide those prices because of shareholders. They are as big as they are due to their over 3 billion shares outstanding. That gives them a competitive edge. They pay their employees competitive wages as well for retail. Now I am not saying that Walmart does not do harm. I feel they do. But they also do a lot of good. They provide cheap goods at convenient locations and times. I personally avoid Walmart because I don't like how only a handful of lanes are open and I also generally hate poor people that don't try to get better. But to say that Walmart is purely bad is lying as well.
    1
  480. +Jeremiah Howell 1. I gave you a shred of evidence and I can provide more if needed. 2. Shareholders do create money for the company. 3. I am poor myself because I am a graduate student. The pure fact is that people, for the most part are poor for a reason. Stereotypes exist for a reason. I go to Walmart and I see shopping carts spread all around the parking lot because people are too lazy to walk them over to where they are supposed to go. I shop at a store that attracts people with more money and I don't see that at all. That is a prime example of laziness and thus why they are poor.
    1
  481. +Jonathan CF " If you sell 50% of your company to the public, then you don't own 50% of your company anymore." I know. "of course shareholders create money for the company. That money is used to finance growth. " I know I know of a lot of what you said. But Walmart has to keep the value of it's shares up. Cutting profits to overpay workers above the market rate, or the wealth they generate does not do that.
    1
  482. Bernie needs to stop making these videos. He keeps pointing towards Denmark, Norway, Sweden etc. and wants to become them. He is not for America.
    1
  483. +elborrador333 A few flaws in your comment 1. I will never say America is number 1 in anything. You can make arguments for it, but you can never say it is definitively number one. At the same time you can't say those countries are better than the US. You can make an argument, but you can't definitively say they are. 2. You say they are happier, what does that even mean? Ever heard of the saying "ignorance is bliss"? I hear that they are happy then I hear they are ignorant and don't care about getting better. I am happy but at the same time I am not satisfy which is why I am striving to be better. You may meet me and say I am not happy but he reality is I am. 3. Least corrupt.....why is that? Is that due to their small population? I will say yes. We are a country of 300+ million people. Those countries are smaller than a lot of our states. Plus, with the corruption we have why do you want to expand the federal government? To increase corruption? It certainly won't help it. 3. Minimum wage. Places like Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, and Sweden don't have a min. wage.
    1
  484. +elborrador333 The fact that you did not know that those countries did not even have a min. wage shows you lack knowledge to keep up with an intellectual debate.
    1
  485. Bernie lies about climate change and fracking. I won't trust him on the environment.
    1
  486. +£xhibit Arts There is an article in PNAS that shows that fracking is not bad. Also climate change is over dramatized and is being politicized to essentially create another tax. I don't spread rumors, I tell the truth. Bernie is a liar and a fool.
    1
  487. +£xhibit Arts I know what fracking is. The PNAS publication is saved on my other computer work, I will link you to it later. But the dangers of fracking are exaggerated and essentially non-existent. So my question to you is that do you even know what fracking is?
    1
  488. +£xhibit Arts That is due to poor piping and water plants. People can so that in areas where there is no fracking. Canada has been fracking for decades with no problems.
    1
  489. +Mr Brownstone http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.abstract As I said, being able to light water from facets on fire comes from poor piping. It has been an issue for decades. http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/19050 People are being lied to about fracking and Bernie is doing the most lying.
    1
  490. A $15/hr min. wage will kill jobs and increase poverty in low income areas. The harsh reality is that nothing good comes from the min. wage. When broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage. People supporting this are literally shooting themselves in the foot, except for politicians who support it to gain votes.
    1
  491. Wow, that is awful that our federal government acts that way. I got a great idea! How about we let that same government control more of our money, our healthcare, our college education and jobs? Sounds great, doesn't it?
    1
  492. Worry about beating Clinton first.
    1
  493. +Ryan Lowry Actually it is wealth, not money. Money does not equal wealth. This is how Bernie, a career politician is being deceptive.
    1
  494. +Adam Nasello The original poster said money. I did watch the video.
    1
  495. +Eric Jaffa The original poster said money. Plus wealth inequality is not bad. He has been called out on this in the past.
    1
  496. +Adam Nasello I was responding to the poster. Also we have such high income inequality due to the socialist policies we have in place. If we establish Bernie's policies it will either be 1. worse 2. all those with money will leave thus we have nothing left to tax
    1
  497. +Adam Nasello A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average homeowner has over 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Now is that bad? No. Think about what wealth is. Someone owns a home, that is a vast majority of their wealth. Now what is next on the value list? Maybe their car. Then their flat screen TV, then their computer and so on. The reason why the top has so much wealth is because they own and run businesses. Not every desires to do that. The Walton family have so much wealth due to them owning half of walmart, as in the buildings, the trucks, the goods until they are sold and so on. With the wealth inequality that means there is wealth available. I don't mind that the top has so much wealth, I own a smart phone with my $25,000 a year salary. I own a reliable car. Everyone is better off. Now Bernie wants wealth redistribution. To do that you will literally have to give a Walmart to someone. Considering how over 50% of small businesses fail within 5 years that means it you give someone a Walmart the value of that building will drop thus wealth goes down. That is why wealth redistribution is impossible, it is only wealth destruction. So with that said you see the advantages of wealth inequality. As far as income inequality, that comes from socialist policies. People are given handouts thus don't value money. The top 10%, who pay 70% of taxes, value money. Thus you have income inequality.
    1
  498. +Ronan Ruddy I know what literally means. The Walton family have so much wealth due to them owning half of Walmart. To do wealth redistribution you will have to take their wealth, which is parts of Walmart, and give it to someone.
    1
  499. +Kingbubbles "people vote against their benefit." Or maybe they vote in their benefit. Who are you to say what is right and what is wrong? What makes you so almighty? What is the "fair share" of taxes? Just throwing statements around does not make them mean anything. I feel the top pay too many taxes. What is my justification? Why have one. You don't.
    1
  500. +Meteo Transmuter If you want a flat tax then I am fine with that.
    1
  501. +Kingbubbles Wealth does not equal income, learn that first. We should not be taxing wealth. The top 10% pay 70% of taxes.
    1
  502. +Ronan Ruddy What is "correctly and fairly"?
    1
  503. +Ice Wafer So you don't have an argument for "fair share", because as of now they do pay the rate set by the government. Warren Buffet paid around 50% of his taxes he received personally himself as income. He put 99% of his earnings into his stocks where he owns 1/3 of his business. That is why his tax rate seemed lower, but in reality his income tax rate was higher. According to you Apple paid their fair share, they followed the law set by the government.
    1
  504. +Ice Wafer 1. Tax is theft without representation and it is a waste 2. I personally want zero federal income tax and to go back to a tax on the states. The states can decide what is the "fair share" 3. I am not understanding this question 4. With this one pays less in taxes. I don't support that but instead support simplified tax code. 5. Not every business has stocks 6. You don't run a business, that is why. But as I said I support a simplified tax code 7. No one should
    1
  505. I see a bunch of first time voters who have never been involved in politics until now. How many of these people even heard of Bernie Sanders before a few months ago?
    1
  506. +Lindsey TheMoose Democratic socialism is communism. Saying it isn't is like saying having sex with a drunk, passed out girl is not rape because they didn't fight back.
    1
  507. +Lindsey TheMoose It isn't a terrible analogy, what Bernie pushes for is similar to communism or fascism. Calling it something different doesn't change what it is. He supports the masses oppressing a group of people that he does not like, but calls it democratic socialism like it is not as bad. As I said, having sex with a passed out girl and not calling it rape because they didn't fight back is still rape.
    1
  508. +Lindsey TheMoose Ok, here is how it starts "Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet human needs" The way Bernie wants to run it is that the people that vote for him gang up and attack the rich. That is one group of people silencing another. That is not democracy, that is fascism. Bernie and his followers have a problem with the rich buying out the government to be in their favor. I don't like that as well. But using the government to oppress the rich is just as bad. Ever heard of the expression "two wrongs don't make a right"? This applies here. I am informed on the topic. I just realize what it really is past the deceptive name.
    1
  509. +Lindsey TheMoose I am here to educate Bernie supporters. They are pretty foolish and gullible. If you want to get into detail about Bernie's policies we can. I can break them down showing not only how they will not work, but how potentially dangerous they are. Anyway, if you do not see how "democratic socialism" is fascism then you are going to have a very difficult life.
    1
  510. +Because I'mbatman Bernie is corrupt. He studied political science in college. He is a career politician. He will say and do things to get elected instead of actually helping the country. In this case getting a gang of people together to oppress others.
    1
  511. +Lindsey TheMoose Well considering how you can't see how Bernie's policies are fascist I would say you do need an education.
    1
  512. +Because I'mbatman One, the 1% already pay most of the taxes. Having them pay more will not help. They will just move their money offshore or pass the cost onto the middle class. Plus I like how you used the work "asking". Like it is a request. It is just a simple request for the 1% to pay more in taxes, while the threat of jail is looming overhead. But Bernie also said that college students are forced to pay their college loan. So deciding to go to college and pay off a loan is being forced, but Bernie is simply asking the 1% to pay more in taxes. That is why Bernie is a career politician. Listen to him talk. If you were knowledgeable you would see past their little attention to detail things and realize he is a con artist.
    1
  513. +Because I'mbatman They invest their money. If they save it they save it in banks who invest it. That drives the economy. Not taking money from people who invest it and giving it to those that don't. They don't pay their employees more because of one simple reason, they can't afford it. If you want an education then use Khan Academy, read free e-books online. Education is very affordable. With college you are investing money to better yourself. It is an investment just like the rich invested time and money to get better.
    1
  514. +Batmangutten That website does not cite any concrete numbers and is not trustworthy at all.......but what does it matter, he lost.
    1
  515. +Batmangutten He lost. And the citations are questionable and don't give concrete numbers.
    1
  516. +Batmangutten Noway has around 5 million people and subsidizes their programs with oil.
    1
  517. +Batmangutten Again, those countries have small populations and completely different societies. Denmark has mandatory military for example. Also the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world.....so what's your point?
    1
  518. +Batmangutten I agree that we can look at establishing these programs at the state level, but never the fed. " Saying that it is not possible in the U.S because it has more people does not make sense because with more people you also get more revenue." And you get a larger diversity and greater challenges. Remember that 60 senate democrats could not agree on one type of healthcare bill.
    1
  519. +Batmangutten There has been research done that shows that the US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world. I am not just talking about quality but also results. "If those countries have small populations why don't we than create "health care zones" with each zone having 5 million people in it." We have that, they are called states. "According to you the systems in those countries work because of the low population so this should fix the issue." No, they have different societies. Even at that they have problems.
    1
  520. +Batmangutten Evidently people die in other countries due to inferior care, so both systems face problems. Germany has how many people? What about France? Yes we can do it at the state level. "Anyways why not give it a try at this point considering how well conservative economic policy has worked out?" Liberal policies have done a lot of damage.
    1
  521. +Batmangutten After WW2 we started to pull away from what FDR did (which caused a depression) and every other country in the world was rebuilding when we weren't. That is why we did so well. "It was after the Reagan administration that we saw and increase in work hours with less pay and vaction time while also seeing the wealth of the richest sky rocket." Not true. We can't do it at the federal level because 1. you really don't want that 2. our diversity is too large All of those other countries all implement a different program. It isn't as easy as you are making it sound.
    1
  522. +Batmangutten FDR turned a recession into a depression. Noticed that under no other president has there ever been times that bad? Having states run it is the best system to have. What works in one state will not work in another. Plus at the federal level it is boom or bust, and as history has shown it is typically bust.
    1
  523. +Batmangutten Pay was not decreasing. If you were to look at just wages then yes, but due to the payroll tax in the 60s businesses started to pay through benefits since they were tax free. Also I constantly am giving graphs showing that pay has started to stagnate in the 70s, before Reagan. If you also include the fact that prices are dropping (for example people are spending less percent of their income on food) then the purchasing power of the dollar has been going up, similar to wages going up. For inequality mainly due to liberal policies such as welfare and the progressive income tax. That and technology and those who innovated and invested in it. That is called Skilled Biased Technological Change. But again that has led to better goods and services at a lower price. We didn't do economic policies following WWI. Policies we did not due was have the federal government get involved in the economy like FDR did. In 1921 we had a recession just as bad as the one in 1929. The federal government did nothing in 1921, within a year we recovered.
    1
  524. +Batmangutten "If implamented correctly at a federal level it will work better than at a state level " Which would never happen. The diversity of the US is too great. Plus you don't want the fed. to have that much power. The recession was underway when FDR took over, he expanded it into the depression. Throughout history the US has seen recessions. Only 2 took over 5 years to recover from, the one from 1929 and the current one now. Those two happen to be the only times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy. Every other one we recovered from in around 5 years with little to no federal government action.
    1
  525. +Batmangutten So the fed. getting out of the economy led to the recovery?
    1
  526. +Batmangutten It didn't end when FDR took office. He expanded what Hoover did (and wanted to do in 1921 but the recovery stopped him).
    1
  527. +Batmangutten Other countries have higher cost living as well. I like the welfare program if it is ran at the state and local level and is a jobs program instead of just giving money away.
    1
  528. +Batmangutten John Mackler explained the problems of FDR very well. To add on his spending initially alleviate some problems, but the second he pulled out another crash happened. That was because what FDR created was artificial, it wasn't real growth. It is similar to babying someone for years and then telling them go out and live in the real world, they will ultimately fail. FDR's infrastructure spending was not productive, spending to build an arch in St. Louis is not going to grow an economy. Those "terrible trade agreements" have a lot of benefits. They give jobs to developing countries so they can grow and prevents radical groups like terrorists from taking over. We are a developed nation. We should push people to take on higher skilled job. Bernie wants healthcare and college for all. To have that you need the staff and resources to do that (which we don't have right now). You only get that with people who are trained to developed those things, not having people who do low skill jobs. " I mean universal healthcare on the federal level is at least better than what we have now" How? "On top of that he is the only candadite that is truly not bought out." I reality he is. "He is also the only one that will most likley make the biggest strides in renewable energy" George Bush made strides in that. Under him spending in science research went up. Also look up the comparison of Al Gore's house to George Bush's house. "If I only agreed with half of what he is proposing for example I would still vote for him because at least I know that he has the highest chance of getting me it." Except he is losing and is considered a joke in DC.
    1
  529. Not really comparable. Now I don't agree with corruption but that $200,000/hr (if that is eve real) is not by force. The $15/hr is by force. If you want to make an argument about corruption we can, but to make a comparison like this that are not related then it is hard to take someone serious.
    1
  530. +Rick EYI " Big corporation definitely should pay their employees $15/hr, they have the money to do so." No they don't. Even if they did what about smaller businesses? " For example many Walmart employees use government welfare, " That isn't Walmart's fault their workers refuse to find a way to earn more. "when their company has to money to give them decent salaries." Actually it doesn't. Plus, what is a "decent salary"? "Regarding the $15/hr minimum wage for small business, I think we should give tax break to small business so that they do not have to fire employees." Even with tax breaks they still won't have enough. Plus, how are you going to pay for all of that free stuff with lower taxes?
    1
  531. +Rick EYI If you cut military spending by 100%, shut the lights out in the pentagon and everything then we still won't have enough money to pay for our current budget. Single payer won't save money. We also have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
    1
  532. +Rick EYI The US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world as is http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  533. +Rick EYI The book mentions all of that.
    1
  534. +Rick EYI Plus other countries have problems as well.
    1
  535. +Rick EYI Other countries you are inferior care or people dying in wait lines. So whats the difference?
    1
  536. +Rick EYI Did you read the book?
    1
  537. +Rick EYI "You know I do not have time to read this book" Being knowledgeable on an issue requires time. My point is that no one can say that the US system is inferior or superior in any way. That point lays our arguments in how the US system is arguably a strong system and arguably the best. It doesn't say it definitively is. So when you say the US system is poor compared to other countries then you argument is dead on arrival. We can discuss the problems that exist in the US system but jumping to the conclusion that the US is poor because other countries do something different is weak. " They do not mention the fact that the average wage of middle class household in the country has been decreasing" That isn't true.
    1
  538. +Rick EYI I am saying arguably, not definitively. You can make an argument saying it is not the best. There is data that says it isn't. I personally feel the data is rather poor but it does exist. But with all of that we can't be sitting there focusing on what other countries do but instead focus on what the US has and work with that.
    1
  539. +Rick EYI "Medical bills are the biggest cause of US Bankruptcies" Which is a problem, I agree. "28 millions of people in the US are insured and maybe the same amount are under insured, that is more than 10 % of the population" Insurance does not equal healthcare. Also I agree this is a problem as well. You can thank the federal mandated payroll tax for that. "For me not just about having the hospital and the doctor, it is about being able to afford them" But if the quality is low then what's the point? I agree cost is a problem, but that stems from action of the federal government, not from the private system.
    1
  540. +Captain Sum Ting Wong You forgot, Denmark and Sweden and Trump is evil........oh, and he is a "democratic socialist".
    1
  541. +Nicholas Cuccia FDR turned a recession into a depression
    1
  542. +AS8Cend Or if he paid his workers well then they would stay. Almost every business pushes for that, thing is they simply can't afford it.
    1
  543. So much for money out of politics.
    1
  544. +chickendinner2012 Oh, corporate money bad, but rallying up people to gang up on those you don't like is good. Four legs good, two legs better.
    1
  545. +Malcolm Swoboda I know Bernie Sanders supporters are simpletons. If they weren't they would see the hypocrisy in him.
    1
  546. +chickendinner2012 Corruption is just a symptom of a disease. The disease if too much power in the federal government. Just like corporations buy out politicians to do things in their favor at the expense of others, others are buying Bernie to do the same thing. No difference. If you want remove corruption remove the power of the federal government.
    1
  547. +chickendinner2012 Corporations can't do anything to you but offer you a job or a product. Only government can force you into doing something. Corporations want a strong government on their side just like Bernie Sanders supporters want a strong government on their side. Both cases are using government for oppression. You want control of the government then you need a more local government. Go back to state rights and strip the power from the federal government and you will get that. Consider this, after Bernie gives all this power to the federal government and corporations put their man to replace Bernie after his time is up, is that something you want?
    1
  548. +chickendinner2012 Well one, all a corporation can do is offer you a job or a product. You don't have to take it. The only entity that can force you to do something is government. Now that is to not say that government is bad, there is a need for government. You have to keep government as small and local as possible to see that it remains the servants instead of the masters. The problem we have now is that the federal government has become so powerful that it now controls us. You want government to do X, Y and Z, and it may. The federal government may offer you want you want. But on the flip side it may do A, B and C that you don't like. But if you challenge it then it will take away X, Y and Z. That is not the government you want. You should not fear corporations though. Your fear is in the wrong place.
    1
  549. +chickendinner2012 Monopolies come because of government. Government creates rules and regulations that hurt certain companies. Walmart supported a higher min. wage at one point knowing it will hurt smaller competitors that lacked resources that could not afford to pay higher wages or cut staff like Walmart can. Corporations use government to create monopolies. As I said, corporations can only offer you a job and a product, that is it. Government can only force you to do something. I don't want to weaken government, I want to limit government. I want to go back to state rights to spread out the power and give the people the ability to control it. You on the other hand want to give more power to the federal government opening the doorway for it to become bought out and corrupt. You want government to do X, Y and Z. You will support government because they provide roads. Mean while they are also creating law that benefit corporations. Sure you have your road, but corruption will exist. We can have government, and in several ways we need it. But we also need to control it. You only control it by keeping it as local as possible.
    1
  550. +Liberty for All You can limit the federal government and go back to state rights. With that you develop the ability to control government easier. Too much government is just as bad as no government. The founding fathers saw this which is why they wanted limited government and state rights.
    1
  551. +Liberty for All I personally don't switch back and forth between state rights. But what I find is funny is that those who push for more federal government do so in their favor. But then they complain when others do the same. That is being a hypocrite in my opinion. I am not making a black and white argument here. Anything issue in this country I can point directly to the constitution to solve which placed limitations on governments. We have the blue print, we just have to follow it.
    1
  552. +Liberty for All I believe in following the constitution, that is why I am against Bernie.
    1
  553. +chickendinner2012 Bernie wants socialized healthcare and "free" college paid for by the federal government which violates the 10th amendment. He wants to expand the payroll tax which also violates the constitution. He wants to pay for vacation time and maternity leave which violates the 10th amendment. He supports raising the min. wage which the min. wage violates the 10th amendment. He wants to abolish citizens united which violates property rights such as the 5th amendment. Bernie violates the constitution a lot, and more so than any other candidate which is why I am not voting for him.
    1
  554. The quote by Bernie in the description is a joke. Just because we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world does not mean everyone gets to eat on a silver platter. Rome was wealthy in their time and they had slaves who were considered property.
    1
  555. +3star2nr "which is why wages have remained stagnant since the 80s" That is not true.
    1
  556. +Political Revolution 2016 "raising the minimum wage only distributes wealth more evenly" No it doesn't.
    1
  557. +Political Revolution 2016 Learn the difference between wealth and income
    1
  558. +Zach Smith I criticize Bernie a lot but to be fair he is not well off compared to other politicians. I would agree his policies are crap and will make the country worse off, but he is a guy that settles for mediocrity.
    1
  559. +Political Revolution 2016 There are not "hundreds of economists" that have endorsed Bernie's min. wage policy.
    1
  560. +Political Revolution 2016 A few things. One was mentioned already, there are how many economists? Now compare that to the few that support Bernie. Next, they are not "top economists". If you look up top economist you will not see those economists on that list on the top economist list. Arin Dube, Alan Krueger and David Card are consider top economists (in academics it is how many times you are cited). They specialize in min. wage research and are not on that list at all even though they support the min. wage. That list you gave me isn't worth much at that point and is lying in the title alone. But oh well, Bernie just got beat in NY.
    1
  561. Bernie needs to stop lying about fracking. It is not a problem. Bernie wants to ban something that is not a problem that will hurt the economy and kill jobs. It amazes me how people fall for this idiot so easily.
    1
  562. +questworldmatrix The rewards of fracking far outweigh the almost non-existent risks that are involved. You can split hairs and say there are risks involve, but there are risks involved in driving.....do you want to ban driving?
    1
  563. "i understood what your saying but its inevitable regardless. but in places that cant be replace it will help those" Automation will happen, but it should happen gradually so that the economy is not hurt. When you perturb the economy like this with a min. wage then automation will happen quickly hurting the economy, especially for those with a low income. It is the same with businesses leaving to other countries. Those trade deals that Bernie hates so much have a lot of benefits. Those factory jobs are not necessary in a developed country like the US because we should push more people to take in higher skilled jobs. But add in high taxes and regulations the businesses leave fast creating the problems we have now where the middle class gets screwed. In short, federal government involvement like this causes problems.
    1
  564. Treat people with respect......unless you are rich, white and straight.
    1
  565. Bernie, release your entire political plan.
    1
  566. Politicizing climate change, and science in general, is not a great idea. And using that same politics to create new taxes is even worse.
    1
  567. +Science and Truth 2 Rock By not creating barriers in science with politics.
    1
  568. +Science and Truth 2 Rock The issue of climate change is being overblown by politics to create a new tax. This tax will hurt jobs and economic growth, and what will it pay for?
    1
  569. +Science and Truth 2 Rock "Are you a scientist?" Yes. I am currently pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry.
    1
  570. +Science and Truth 2 Rock I know that climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. The questions regarding climate change are 1. is it even bad 2. how much is man playing a role 3. can we even do anything, and if we can should we do anything I support continuing research in the area to progress us on technology overall and to gain more information on it. When politics get involved you get the excuse to create a new tax off of fear mongering and create new regulations which will hurt the economy with no guaranteed results. Our progress on the issue is doing fine, we can't take drastic measures though. Doing so will hurt the economy which now you have at the very least another problem, and possible two. And before you talk about the global consensus, there is a global consensus that drugs should be illegal, does it make it necessarily right?
    1
  571. +SupremeStoops So is that all you have? I don't support Hilary at all.
    1
  572. +Science and Truth 2 Rock What world scientific consensus? Climate change is happening, beyond that are the questions I gave. This past week we had a seminar and the speaker was blunt in that in the US around 70% of our energy is from fossil fuels and that is not changing anytime soon. The reason why is because we can't drastically change our economy off of such large doubt. Let me ask you, what is your solution. We can start there to give a more clearer picture where you stand.
    1
  573. +Science and Truth 2 Rock I have heard of that 97% consensus, it is overused. It it were actually legit we would have more scientists pushing for something to be done. What is the cause? Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. Fusion? One of my best friends does research in fusion. Fusion is not something we can use as an energy source as of now. Trust me, he is getting his PhD in this work. Fusion is the holy grail of energy and if someone has a way to use fusion to power things at the industrial level then that person would be famous. Wind and solar are not efficient. We need to do more research in those areas but they are not efficient. Wind and solar won't power my lab with a $500,000 laser set up, or Los Alamos National Laboratory in NM. That is why we can't go to those sources, doing so will destroy industry including research in other fields. Let us look at solar energy. A major part of solar energy research is in the f elements. China has cornered the market in the f elements because the regulations in mining are so low that they mine the shit out of them. We have lanthanides and actinides in the US in mines, problem is that due to regulations it takes around 10 years to open a new mine. Those regulations stem from people who feel that mines are icky and pollute and thus need to be stopped. The same people who are dramatizing climate change. Those regulations are preventing researching in the US from mining the f elements to do research in them to develop better solar cells through up and down conversion. You see, the issue is not as easy as you think. It gets more complicated when you involve politics. I have friends who do research in fusion and I have friends who do research in the f elements. I took a course in the f elements. Trust me, this is an area I have a lot of knowledge about. I support research in the area of climate change, but I understand the barriers involved. The last thing we need are politics.
    1
  574. +Science and Truth 2 Rock Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory that gives predictions. It is a theory with a lot of supporting evidence and not other theory rivals it as of now so it is used. But in evolution that is a lot of uncertainty in a lot of areas. Take an evolution course. It is typically a grad. level course so it isn't easy, but taking it will open your mind on how complex evolution is. Scientists are humans and are not immune from being persuaded by special interest groups. Yes scientists are trying to bring attention to climate change, but they realize that we can't make drastic changes. As I said earlier, around 70% of our energy comes from fossil fuels and that is not changing anytime soon. " How are you denying that it's man made? " Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. It is a driving force in evolution. Is man playing a role right now? Yes, but how much? And is it even bad? Nature has evolved for millennia during climate change, why would that all of a sudden change?  " Do you have data to back that up, that doesn't come from the carbon or oil industry?" I have 4 billion years worth of data. "I have no idea who your friend is, look up Germaine's new fusion tests." I looked it up, I really don't see anything. There is not a single society that powers their community from fusion. What is going on is similar to what my friends do. It is plasma research. I feel you are not that knowledgeable on the topic. That is not ripping on you but pointing out a flaw in your thinking and will explains why you are saying what you are saying. ", and since when is solar not efficient?" Since always In industry solar and wind are not efficient. You get the largest energy output with fossil fuels. You can run small towns off of wind, like what is happening in Rock Port, MO. You can run homes off of solar. The issue is that you can't store unused energy for very long and the energy you get is low. When it comes to running a lab like Los Alamos you need fossil fuels. When it comes to running major cities you need fossil fuels. We are using solar and wind as is, but we are right now using the the best we can. There are other issues as well. For example with wind you have to move the turbines to there. That has destroyed a lot of roads. You have to rent out the land. These things cost money and effects the economy. I am all for going to alternative forms of energy, but I am not ignorant in doing it. "Who cares if China makes them?" When they corner the market and jack the price up 10 times what they use to be worth then it does matter. Mining regulations has hurt us in research in solar cells. "Why do we need vast quantities of f elements just to do research?" So we can learn more about their properties and develop better solar cells. Do you even know what f elements are? "Politics are needed or nothing will get done" Why? Politics are the barrier between where you are and where you want to be.
    1
  575. +Science and Truth 2 Rock Observing something is supporting evidence, it still doesn't make it a fact. People observed that after it rains worms appeared. They felt that it rained worms. After a lot of studies later that theory was squashed. People felt that light traveled though aether. the Michelson-Morley experiment gave rise to a new theory. Science does prove anything or provide facts, it gives predictions which are theories. Extinction is a part of evolution. A species could not adjust to changes thus it dies off. It happens. "How do you explain the co2s matching the Industrial Age? Look at the data, look at the graphs" You are comparing around 150 years worth of data to 4 billion years. That is minute and not comparable. "Again, by the numbers, solar is at over 40%, while fossil is at 38% efficiency." That over 40% of rare and expensive for solar. It is rare because if the sun don't shine you get nothing. What is 40% of 10? What is 38% of 1,000,000? Which number is bigger? "I have 20 solar panels, the energy they produce is such, the my entire electrical panel had to be upgraded because it would have melted the previous one otherwise." I already said solar works great at the small scale, but not the industrial level. f elements are lanthanides and actinides on the periodic table. We need government, but we need to control government. I never suggested no government.
    1
  576. +Science and Truth 2 Rock What is gravity? Where does it come from? With gravity we observed something and develop a theoretical model that matches. That is what we do in science.
    1
  577. +Science and Truth 2 Rock 150 years of data is minute compared to 4 billion years. It is similar to only polling 150 people out of 4 billion and making a determination based off of that. It can't be done.
    1
  578. +Science and Truth 2 Rock 40% means nothing. What is 40% of 10? What is 38% of 1,000,000? That is the point.
    1
  579. +Science and Truth 2 Rock My point on the f elements is that we have resources to expand our ability to use alternative energy. We don't because regulations hold us back because people feel mines are yucky. These regulations hurt progress like a carbon tax would. I support going to alternative energy. The fact is that fossil fuels are the best we have when it comes to industry and society in general. While going off of it may help in some areas it will hurt in others. For example the expense of my research goes up. My research can aid in finding a way to cure diabetes or cancer. I do a lot of biophysics in my research. Now that work is hindered. So great, we are not using fossil fuels as much, but now medical research is falling behind. It isn't an easy solution, that is my point.
    1
  580. +Science and Truth 2 Rock When you politicize it you make the issue even worse. You have idiots that feel fracking is bad or dramatize climate change to a point where they support a carbon tax or a ban on fracking. That hurts the economy and other areas in our society. People lose their jobs, energy prices go up, research and production is hindered. It is completely asinine how people think.
    1
  581. +Science and Truth 2 Rock And evolution is still a theory. I am not saying it is crap, it is a theory with a lot of supporting evidence and no other rival. I use it all the time. But you can't just jump to conclusions in science.
    1
  582. +Science and Truth 2 Rock But if you raise taxes on fossil fuels then energy prices go up. That is how it is hindered.
    1
  583. +Science and Truth 2 Rock Poor drinking water comes from water plants not cleaning the water properly and poor piping. Plus accidents happen. People die in cars a lot, do we ban driving now?
    1
  584. +Science and Truth 2 Rock Shit happens, clean it up. Basically you are saying that you support killing jobs and raising energy prices because accidents happen? Around 30,000 a killed every year in the US from car accidents. How many people have died from fracking? There are always risks involved, it is just that reward far outweigh the risks.
    1
  585. +Science and Truth 2 Rock You can't predict the progression of alternative energy. The tax increases could exceed the progression of technology leading to higher prices to where people won't be able to afford energy.
    1
  586. +Science and Truth 2 Rock It is that simple, clean it up. Accidents happen. As I said, the reward far outweighs the risk. You put a price on everything. Why don't you just push to abolish cars and fossil fuel use in general? And why are you bringing up war? War has nothing to do with this. You have to look for both the quick buck and the long run. I don't have any kids that I know of.
    1
  587. He doesn't care about others, only himself.
    1
  588. So you now admit you don't want government running your healthcare, education and the economy?
    1
  589. You know what they say about a fool and their money........
    1