Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Sanders Defends 'Democratic Socialism'" video.

  1. +A Mas To be fair if you include PPP you get a different result.
    2
  2. +Blake Moliere Bernie is terrible at debating. He can't get into detail about anything. He has a lot of one liners that attract the very emotional and irrational, but for moderates he will look like the old guy on the street corner just yelling.
    1
  3. +John Smith He doesn't go into details though. I have yet to hear him go into details on any one of his speeches or proposed policies. He lacks a specific plan to pay for his policies and when you break them down they simply do not work. Looking at "free public universities", with the numbers taxing Wall Street will only pay for $47 billion, the states will pay the rest......how? And he is saying $70 billion when, with current enrollment and average tuition it would cost over $78 billion. And that is with current enrollment, never mind the increase enrollment after he makes it "free". And how does he plan on fixing the problem of lack of resources. I work on a university. I know that we lack professors, classrooms, dorms, tutors and student workers, parking space, TAs and so on. How does he plan on fixing that? Bernie has been in congress for around 3 decades, he should have plans set by now.
    1
  4. +Blake Moliere I agree with Jeb and Cruz. Trump acts like a troll at times but when it comes down to economic issues he will dominate Bernie and Clinton. Carson gets into detail a lot about his policies. Bernie, in the end will look like that old guy no the street corner who yells and people tune out.
    1
  5. +Casual Alien Because in the US it does not work.
    1
  6. +John Smith During the economic boom taxes were lower. Taxes were lower due to tax breaks and inefficient technology that made tracking money harder for the IRS. Before the War on Poverty poverty was dropping. Since then it has been stagnate. Payroll taxes like Social Security is the reason why wages have become stagnate. It has done a lot of harm.
    1
  7. +295Phoenix Military is constitutional thus it can be funded. I agree it is high but it is at least constitutional. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are payroll taxes. They are the reason wages are stagnate and they contributed to the rising cost of healthcare. Also you have to consider they are programs running out of money.
    1
  8. +Mister mood Yep, like turning a recession into a depression.
    1
  9. +David Greene (Nøkkenbuer) The recession started around 1929. In history recessions took around 5 years to recover from. FDR took over in 1933. We should have had a recovery by 1936 at the latest. What happened instead? A depression. During FDR's time was the first time the federal government tried to "fix" the economy and a depression took place. That is with the New Deal. Every other time the federal government did little to nothing and look what happened, fast recoveries.
    1
  10. +David Greene (Nøkkenbuer) Hoover's and FDR's polices is what caused the great depression. My history is point on. The panic of 1792 is not an example. One, there as no federal income tax. Next, that is not a panic, it lasted only a few months and was when the country was not even 20 years old. Look at later examples such as the Panic of 1837
    1
  11. +David Greene (Nøkkenbuer) The panic of 1792 is a poor example. We were still a very young country who's economic situation was very unstable. FDR's policies caused the great depression because his massive spending creating artificial growth. The second he cut it there was a massive crash. You create something artificial it is going to come crashing down eventually. As Henry Morgenthau Jr. said "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot." You can't artifcially stimulate the economy. And during FDR's time was the first time that the federal government tried to "fix" the economy and look what happen. If we followed FDR's policies and there was not a depression then yeah, I will support it. But that did not happen.
    1
  12. +Visitormassacre Too bad you don't know history, they caused the great depression.
    1
  13. +Visitormassacre The recession started under Hoover. Under FDR the recession turned into a recession that we finally recovered from 8 years later due to the war and his death. Please learn some history.
    1
  14. +Visitormassacre Throughout US history we recovered from every single recession except for 2 in around 5 years. Every time we recovered it involved little to no federal government action. The two times where we had slow recovery were during the great depression and now. Both times involved massive spending and increase in taxes. The recession started in 1929, by at least 1935 it should have been over, instead a recession turned into a depression. If a president was elected during that time and pushed for spending cuts, lower taxes and regulations and a depression still happened I bet you dollars to doughnuts that you will be all over that president and blaming their policies for that.
    1
  15. +Visitormassacre If you count a 8 year long depression as "fixing" the economy then you are not very bright.
    1
  16. +Gerroditus The recession started in 1929, the fact it was a depression was that it took so long to recover from and we did not fully recover until the 1940s. Fact.
    1
  17. +Gerroditus Happen overnight? No. No recession has ever been recovered from over night. They take up to around 5 years. Every recession before that (and after that until 2007) took around 5 years to recover from with little to no federal government involvement. Under FDR was the first time the federal government tried to "fix" the economy through massive spending and tax increases and the recession turned into a depression. The reason why the economy got better (around a decade later) was due to the war. Every country except for the US was at war. If it wasn't for the war the depression would have lasted longer. Top tax rates were high but nobody paid those high taxes. If I were rich I would love to have the taxes from the 40s and 50s with their technology. With inferior technology and tax breaks that can easily be lied about taxes were low. That is why the tax reform bill was passed in the late 60s. " but because while more wealth is held in the top 1% than the bottom 90%" You need to learn what wealth is. Wealth inequality is good in a strong economy. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth then a renter. A homeowner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth. Doesn't mean they are not well off. I have negative wealth. I live in a decent apartment with no crime. I own a reliable car and earn a nice paycheck. I have negative wealth due to loans I am paying off. Define rich. If me owning land and a home and retiring early is rich then I will be rich. I will be in the 90% but who cares. At this point you are just showing jealousy.
    1
  18. +Eric Jaffa Brave It is harder to have a democracy with a larger population.
    1
  19. +CollegeTalkTV Police and fire departments are funded locally (and in some cases privately with the fire department). The military is funded federally and is constitutional.
    1
  20. +Cavecat It is easier to have a democracy when you have a smaller population. That is why the founding fathers wanted state rights.
    1
  21. +51TGM71 Not really. And if you don't like how a state is ran then you can always move.
    1
  22. +Andrew Friend The more local government is the easier it is for citizens to see if they are getting their money's worth. At the federal level you create this idea where you feel you are spending someone else money in taxes, but they are spending yours. What is the best way to spend it? To ensure that money is spent the best way possible you have to keep government as local as possible. It also creates checks and balances so people are able to control government easier. You never want to put so much power in one area, in this case the federal government.
    1
  23. +51TGM71 One incident. It happens I agree, but it still doesn't mean we should scrap a productive idea.
    1
  24. +Peter Mogensen It goes beyond that as well. It is checks and balances of power. You should never isolate all the power in one area. In this case the federal government. One of the ideas of state rights is to spread out the power. At the state and local level you can see if your money is being spent better, policies are easier to change, and if you don't like how a state is ran then you can move. At the federal level you don't get that. And add in more level of bureaucracy then you have a mess.
    1
  25. +V. V. Malazan There are rights in the US that no government can take away, they are listed in the constitution. Beyond that you don't have anything protected or not guaranteed anything. Also if you live in state chances are that you like how that state is being ran. If you don't then rally people to go out and vote or move. Nobody is going to be 100% happy with what is in place. So someone's life gets turned upside down? So what. Are you suggesting we cater to that one person at the expense of others?
    1
  26. +Tsuroerusu When it comes to states in the US nobody talks about scalability either. It goes beyond that. It goes with the people can move from one state to another and pick a government that suites them. Plus Iceland 600,000 to Denmark's almost 6 million is a factor of ten. Denmark to the US is where the US is 60 times larger.
    1
  27. +Cavecat There is a great video titled "Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups" There Friedman explains the importance of a smaller more local government and people are able to see if they are getting their money's worth. At the federal level if they spend money in Florida then I have no clue it if was spent well, I live on the other side of the country. Where as in the state level I can see if my tax dollars are spent in a way the is beneficial and in the most effective way. Even more so at the local level. You have to realize what government is for. You, me and everyone else can in no way keep track of everything that goes on in society. If someone breaks a law I am not going to spend time seeing if they are guilty or not and what the punishment should be. I have my own responsibility in life. We hire DA's for that, and elect judges, and have jury selection and so on. A government entity. There are several examples of government being beneficial. With that said we can't allow the government to become too powerful. We have to keep it in check. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. In the US at the state level laws are passed very easily. People have more control of their government at the local level. This is easily seen in the low approval rating of congress and the high retention rating. People feel that their federal representative is in the right and that everyone else is in the wrong. When the bay area elects Nancy Pelosi they do so because one, it benefits them, and two, they feel they are in the right and doing the country well. In reality they are doing a complete injustice to the rest of the country and this is seen because she is one of the most hated members of congress. But people can't vote for her outside of the bay area. In the end, to sum it up, it is about checks and balance of power. We need government, what kind is the question. What is it's role is the question. And we need to maintain the ability to control government. As Friedman puts it make sure they are the servants. You do that with smaller more local government. Look at it like this. You will never ask a principal of a school to teach all the students. You have teachers that do that. Under the principal you have vice principals, AD's and other administration. With much larger schools you have departments and department heads. On a football team you will never had the head coach coach everything. You have assistance. At the college level you have GAs. The same holds true for government and policy. What works in Denmark and it's tiny size of 5 million will not necessarily (and history shows this) work in the US.
    1
  28. +Eddie "JaggSauce" Gluskin Wow, you totally missed the point. One of the ideas of state rights is to have flexibility. You can stay in the country and remain an American, you can also live in a state that suits you. I love the state I live in. No income tax, low taxes in general, lots to do for me, not many people etc. I can see how some people can hate it. It caters to flexibility and diversity, something that you seem to not like.
    1
  29. +Cavecat The US has socialized healthcare. It has led to higher healthcare cost. With the loan system we have a system where anyone can go to college. That has led to $1.2 trillion dollars in debt and higher tuition. We have a lot of federal social programs and they are a waste or contribute to all of our problems.
    1
  30. +Cavecat Obamacare has actually raised cost in healthcare. Last year was the first full year of it being in place and healthcare insurance is going up, in some cases over 50%. The US has medicare and medicaid. It has the mixture of socialize care with the private option. That is what "moderate liberals" push for when we already have it. It is paid for by the payroll tax. Due to that wages became stagnate and healthcare went up in price. So yes, the US does have socialized care. With the loan system it once again tries to create this "balance" of government involvement and private investment. It has backfired. The only thing it has done is make it so that the US has arguably the best university system in the world. At the very least it is unique and it works well.
    1
  31. +Cavecat You NYTimes link doesn't say how medicare is cheaper. Anyway the high price of healthcare in the US is related to the payroll tax of SS, Medicare and Medicaid. When you remove the ability for consumers to negotiate between competitors then prices go up and quality goes down. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/health-insurance-companies-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html Same source essentially. The problem with your NYTimes source is that due to the poor economy healthcare prices were already stagnate along with other prices. Plus Obamacare was not fully implemented until a year ago, that is what my article is related to. We can now start to make a full judgement when it has been around for a year. In all Denmark is only 5 million people, you can't compare it to the US. Even with that it is arguable to say that the US has the best healthcare in the world. When you remove murder and accidents, things not associated with healthcare, we are number one in life expectancy.
    1
  32. +Advicut It goes beyond that. The idea of state rights is that it was to create checks and balances in power. You don't want to isolate all your power in one area. By what you and Cavecat are saying why have a congress? Why not just a president? Why not due away with the supreme court? Also you can micromanage programs better at the local level. Why have multiple teachers in a school and push for small classroom sizes? Why not have one teacher teach all the student? You also deal with the issue of diversity. MRIs are cheap in my hometown. My hometown has a program where if you had any athletic injury, and you can prove it was for an athletic event, you get your medical prices reduced. It was mainly due to the doctor there being an huge sports fan, but my multiple MRIs cost almost nothing. But how many doctors are willing to work with a program like that? All across the country people deal with different issues, states deal with different issues. The founding fathers ran into the exact same problem with 13 states and 3 million people. That is why the create state rights. It was to create checks and balances of power and to make for a more efficient system. You, as a citizen is able to see if your tax dollars is being spent more efficiently at the local level. You personally witness how your tax dollars are being spent. At the federal level you don't. At the federal level you also create corruption. The more power it has the more it can be bought. With smaller, more local government you can control and manage government better. You want to create a federal government that has the ability to give you healthcare. You may like that. But as a result it will do other things now that you don't like but others like.
    1
  33. +Cavecat About every policy except for foreign policy. With what you are saying why have a congress and supreme court? Why not just a president? Put on the power in on hands, see how well that goes.
    1
  34. +Cavecat Examples in the US alone Healthcare (medicare, medicaid, VA) Social Security The Department of Education The IRS
    1
  35. +Cavecat Just a few to start
    1
  36. +Cavecat It doesn't though. Medicare is running out of money and it has contributed to the increase in healthcare cost and the current problems with healthcare insurance. Over half of people get healthcare through their employer. A reason why is because medicare is a payroll tax. Payroll taxes hindered employers from giving out raises unless they paid through benefits since benefits were 100% tax free where wages were taxed. Instead of insurance companies competing and people getting more money to buy a plan that suits them that is affordable, people were stuck with what their employer offers, a generic plan. That has caused the problems. Adding more government to it will just make it worse.
    1
  37. +Advicut Police is 100% funded locally. The military deals with foreign affairs which is constitutional and within the powers of the federal government. Plus the military can't enforce state law without the governor's consent, so they are limited. The department of transportation at the federal level is a waste, most funding for transportation is local. SS and Medicare are losing money. There is nothing wrong with taxes if people are getting their money's worth. You only see that at the local level. That is how you establish a democracy. At the federal level you don't have that. Case in point, congress has a low approval rating but a high retention rate.
    1
  38. +daz7887 "it makes sense that a large entity like a government would be able to negotiate cheaper prices with drug companies. If a government of a whole nation decides it isn't going to buy drug x because its price doesn't justify its efficacy, that's a pretty big incentive for the drug companies to price drugs more reasonably. " What will happen is that they will stop producing the drug. We see that in other countries whose productivity is inferior to that of the US.
    1