Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Philly Soda Tax Would Punish the Poor | Bernie Sanders" video.

  1. 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
  2. +Cameron _ _ Water is basically free.
    1
  3. +Cameron _ _ So we should reward people's bad behavior? Why would I expect anything different from Bernie.
    1
  4. +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
  5. +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
  6. +tonywardd Water is free, drink that.
    1
  7. +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
  8. +fehzorz These are the same people that want the "rich" to pay for their healthcare.
    1
  9. +Enzo Niebuhr Water is basically free. Don't buy bottle water.
    1
  10. +Enzo Niebuhr Maybe you should rally with your local government to get clean water.
    1
  11. +Batmangutten That website does not cite any concrete numbers and is not trustworthy at all.......but what does it matter, he lost.
    1
  12. +Batmangutten He lost. And the citations are questionable and don't give concrete numbers.
    1
  13. +Batmangutten Noway has around 5 million people and subsidizes their programs with oil.
    1
  14. +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
  15. +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
  16. +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
  17. +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
  18. +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
  19. +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
  20. +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
  21. +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
  22. +Batmangutten So the fed. getting out of the economy led to the recovery?
    1
  23. +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
  24. +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
  25. +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