Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Does Bernie Sanders Want A 90% Tax Rate?" video.

  1. +PaddyCollector Wealth does not equal income.
    2
  2. +Jose S FDR also turned a recession into a depression.
    2
  3. +Shane Schroeder Bernie never gave a number either. He has been in congress for over 2 decades. He has these radical ideas. Because of his radical ideas he is an easy target for criticism. Until he comes up with a number, and it doesn't have to be exact, it can be ballpark, people will just call him what they want. How are they going to debunk it?
    1
  4. +CrimsonPhoenix96 It depends on the course. Teachers can give out opinions and thoughts that others have. It isn't a lie to say Bernie was a socialist, and he has yet to give out a number on his tax rate except it will be higher than it is now and it used to be at 90%.
    1
  5. +pbfloyd13 Until he gives out a number then you can't argue against it. He has been in congress for over 2 decades, he should have an idea at least.
    1
  6. +lowratehitman Watch it, BramSLI1 will do the "liberal" move of blocking you.
    1
  7. +SlashBernGrow Bernie Sanders has a lot of clueless followers. This video is a perfect example. Sure Bernie did not say he will place a 90% tax rate, but the fact is he has not said any rate at all except that it will be higher. And that he will have to tax more than the 1%. Fact is Bernie gives these radical ideas, dramatizes our problems, if they even are problems, but gives no plan. He is an easy target which is why people are saying he is going to tax at 90%. What I Bernie's counter offer? He does not give an approximate number. He has been in congress for over 2 decades, he should know.
    1
  8. +donHooligan I don't support Trump, but Bernie fans are pretty lame as is. They can't even understand basic economics.
    1
  9. +SlashBernGrow Ok, what is going to be Bernie's tax rate?
    1
  10. +hampe hjsjdf Watch it, BramSLI1 might do the "liberal" thing of blocking you.
    1
  11. +ryan8878 Under FDR a recession turned into a depression.
    1
  12. +ryan8878 Longest recovery ever from a recession was under FDR.
    1
  13. +ryan8878 Crashes happen, they happened before 1929 and after. We saw one in 1920 and recovery was within a year. The recessions we saw the slowest recoveries were when the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with higher regulations and spending. Like the great depression and the one we are in now. Every other recession took around 5 years or less to recover from with little to now federal government action. Facts don't lie. FDR was the president when we saw the slowest recovery from a recession ever. I bet you think Matt Millen was a good GM for the Detroit Lions as well.
    1
  14. +ryan8878 The recession in 2007 was with a democrat congress, but I bet you choose to ignore that. A recession happened in the late 70s and Reagan was elected and a recovery happened a year afterwards. So saying "conservative governments" means nothing. The fact is that FDR was president during the great depression. The war, and his death led to a recovery. You can try to spin it anyway you want but that is the fact. Another fact is that FDR wanted to stack the court with his judges to get his way. He was on a huge power trip. If a republican president tried to do that you would scream foul I bet. Glass-Steagal-bad My PhD is going well.
    1
  15. +ryan8878 Jobs don't mean anything if they don't pay well.
    1
  16. +hampe hjsjdf Social democrat means dependent on the government. You are educated by the government from pre-school through college. And if you are not a part of the elite then you work a government job.
    1
  17. +hampe hjsjdf I agree, government jobs suck. But in a social democracy you are a slave to the government. Unless you are the elite or politically connected like Bernie.
    1
  18. +ryan8878 You are not educated, you are trained and develop skills. There is a big difference. If you were actually educated you would know that.
    1
  19. +ryan8878 You are not educated based on the fact that you can't differentiate between education and skill. I am developing a skill where I am one of 100 people that can do what I do in the world. We have a person in our lab that went 2 years in a tech school. Less "educated" than me but earns $200/hr because he is highly skilled. You should understand the difference.
    1
  20. +ryan8878 The US has a higher GDP per capita than Canada. What proof do you have that Republicans like to keep regular people poor? They are not the ones supporting an increased payroll tax.
    1
  21. +ryan8878 I guess you did not read the "per capita" part. And you claim you are educated? I did not know educated in Canada meant not being able to read.
    1
  22. +ryan8878 But you did not mention "per capita". You just said the US had a higher GDP which is true. Now you are saying that the US has a stronger economy than compared to socialist Canada. Alright. I am getting my PhD in physical chemistry. I know stats very well and read them for a living. "Proof, removal of the minimum wage, lowering the minimum wage, refusing to remove Bush tax cuts on the rich forcing the burden to fall on the middleclass and poor. etc. etc. etc. You idiot." When broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage. It hurts the poor by raising prices, lowering hours, and making it harder for those with low skills and at a disadvantage from getting jobs, typically the poor and youths in poor communities. The Bush tax cuts lowered taxes for all, so I have no clue where you get the whole burden on the middle class and poor. Especially considering the bottom 47% get money back from the government. If you are going to make a point you can't just spit rhetoric or change your stance on something. You have to explain how those programs hurt the poor.
    1
  23. +ryan8878 How am I jumping around?
    1
  24. +ryan8878 hampe hjsjdf is right. You point out the good parts as social democracy but then if something is bad it is right wing. It is called logical fallacies. Saying anything right wing is bad is a logical fallacy. You are using them a lot and don't mean anything in an argument.
    1
  25. +ryan8878 Wealth distribution is always going to be skewed. The reason why is that for the average person most of their wealth is tied into their home. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. A homeowner has over 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth. Now is that bad? Not really. People who are really wealthy own and run major businesses. The Walton family own half of Walmart. Warren Buffet own 1/3 of his company. Warren only pays himself around $100,000 a year. A vast majority of his wealth is tied into his stocks. Now is that bad? Not really. Wealth has to be created, it just doesn't exist. This is why "redistribution of wealth" can't happen. It is impossible. Those on top created that wealth and it improves all of society. There will always be skewness though. If not then it is because the country has little wealth as a whole. "Common sense" is not a valid argument. When one says "common sense" they are either being condescending or they are giving a hand wavy argument. When broken down there is not one single good reason to even have a min. wage. Congress voted for the war and funding for it. And the war was not built on lies. Plus you have not mentioned how that keeps poor people poor.
    1
  26. +ryan8878 "Rhetoric? How about video evidence of Republicans stating as such? What about newspaper articles and voting records? Or is that just make believe in your eyes?" What evidence? What voting record? That is still all rhetoric.
    1
  27. +ryan8878 "Social democracy" is a made up term just like "trickle down economics" is a political term designed to do ad hominem attacks without getting into detail. People who support "social democracy" don't get into details on what they want to do. Bernie never has. He never said what the tax rate should be except for "higher". He looks at other countries and says they are doing better but cherry picks reason why and ignores others. Denmark, for example, has mandatory military. Is that what you want? There is no definition for "social democracy" like there isn't one for "trickle down economics" or "living wage" and so on. They are political phrases designed to appeal to emotions and pull wool over people's eyes.
    1
  28. +ryan8878 Sorry, but that does not work. You linked me to google. Reading the open source of Wikipedia has statements such as "redistribution of wealth" which I explained is not possible. It fails to get into detail on anything and presents it in a broad way. This is no different than "living wage". That is a very subjective term that means nothing when broken down. Or "trickle down economics" which is not even an economic term. As I said, it is a political phrase designed to appeal to emotions and means nothing. People point towards successful programs as "social democracy" and failures to "trickle down" when it can easily be twisted. They are phrases that mean nothing. I suggest studying some more.
    1
  29. +ryan8878 I can give you a link that says "social democracy" is crap, it still doesn't mean anything. The fact is that "social democracy" is a political phrase design to appeal to emotions. Just like "trickle down economics" (which is not even an economic term) does. It appeals to emotions. They are statements that means nothing. You say you support "social democracy". How? Get into detail? What policies do you support and be specific? Bernie has the same problem. He says he supports it. How? He never gave his tax plan, or how much money he will spend, or what rules he will put in place. He simply says he is a "social democrat". That means nothing. Right now all you have done is give rhetoric and told me to look something up on google. I can look up "Obama is an alien", does it mean anything? You have failed to get into detail on anything which shows you are not too bright. And then you said I am "incredibly stupid". Not surprised you are voting for who you are.
    1
  30. +ryan8878 You are not seeing the point here. The term "social democracy" is a political phrase designed to appeal to emotions. People end up making it whatever they want it to be. People on the left point to successful programs as "social democracy" and failures as "trickle down economics". They are phrases people throw around that mean nothing. "I guess any and every political label falls under the same criteria then. They are just used to drum up emotion right?" They pretty much are. They are what you just said they are, labels. They are labels people use to avoid discussing actual issues. "Social Democracy as is defined more or less is a combination of both a general welfare state and capitalism." And........ You have to be more specific than that. What you just said can mean anything. What you are also not realizing is that you are more or less mixing water and oil. Take the min. wage for example. A flaw in that is that you are enforcing how much is paid per hour, not per week. But you see the min. wage as part of that mixture. But the capitalist side will just raise prices and cut hours. Your proposal is really expanding the size of the federal government which is the major source of our problems. What I find funny is that in "social democracy" people are ignoring the "democracy" part. At the federal level nothing has ever been a democracy, ever. But yet you want to have "social democracy" established. That is like putting gas in a diesel engine. It is not going to work because the people don't have a voice at the federal level. This is my number one problem with Bernie. He wants to expand the size of the federal government and give it more power. You do as well. But when Bernie is gone what is going to prevent future politicians at the federal level from misusing that power? Democracy? As I said, the system is not set up that way. You only vote for a handful of congressmen at best. Breaking down your ideas "Some changes that would be beneficial is a Federal Land Titles Act or Torrens system which would reduce the amount of Foreclosure Fraud" As I said, this should not even be an issue at the federal level. " Lower interest rates for students seeking post secondary education to the point or cost recovery considering its the Feds that typically secure loans for students" Feds should not be involved in student loans. Plus, student loans are very generous as is. "Watch dog organizations given heightened powers over wall street to mitigate abuse" Again, the federal government should not have that power "A marginal tax rate system where individual income over 5 million yearly results in a marginal tax of 50% to 60%" So people can just move their money someplace else? "Nomore corporate subsidies to oil and gas companies. " i agree on that one "Consumer choice when it comes to GMO's. " Again, not a federal issue "Reject the TPP." Why? "Public boards to oversee Police department conduct who have heightened powers." Already exists, it is called the Constitution " A slightly reduced military budget by 5-10%" Why? Also military spending is one area the federal government can actually spend on. If you look at percent of GDP the US is comparable in spending to other countries. I will give you credit, you got into more detail than Bernie did. Bernie still has not given a tax rate yet. That is why people say he is going to tax at 90%.
    1
  31. +ryan8878 The states do get involved. And a lot of times they are not problems to begin with. The idea of state rights is to create checks and balances of power. You want to give all this power to the federal government, which you can't control as easily as the local governments, and hope it does not become corrupt. This is why we have corruption. If the federal government did not have power then it can't be bought and the problems you are complaining about won't exist.
    1
  32. +Kush Mountain Bernie Sanders supporters don't seem to know what investments are, or taking financial risks are. It goes both ways.
    1
  33. +Mario Quade It is more of that the tax code is so complicated that people don't have time to understand it. Getting a W2 is the worse way to pay taxes, but it is the most common way people do. This is why the founding fathers wanted no federal income taxes. The government pulls wool over your eyes.
    1
  34. +sdhpCH The US at the federal level is not a democracy.
    1