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

  1. +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
  2. +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
  3. +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
  4. +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
  5. +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
  6. +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
  7. +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
  8. 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
  9. +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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. +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
  16. 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
  17. +Doulton Schweizer How liberal of you. I wouldn't expect anything else from a Bernie supporter.
    1
  18. 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
  19. +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
  20. +Sam Bergman http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf It is honest research.
    1
  21. +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
  22. +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
  23. +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
  24. +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
  25. 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
  26. Eric Gardner died because of high taxes.
    1
  27. +tonywardd Water is free, drink that.
    1
  28. +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
  29. +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
  30. 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
  31. +MrBeauty Maybe if you buy strictly off of the dollar menu.
    1
  32. +MrBeauty But they are not starving, that is the point.
    1
  33. +MrBeauty But Bernie said starvation wages. If he wants to talk about bills then he should call it something else.
    1
  34. +MrBeauty I read it, he doesn't. He just pulls numbers out of nowhere and says appeal to emotion rhetoric.
    1
  35. +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
  36. +Steven Doan Who?
    1
  37. +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
  38. +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
  39. +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
  40. +Shaun Dabare The recession was under way, under FDR we saw a depression.
    1
  41. +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
  42. +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
  43. +Shaun Dabare http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
    1
  44. +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
  45. +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
  46. +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
  47. +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
  48. +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
  49. +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
  50. +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