Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Sanders Is Out-Fundraising EVERY GOP Candidate, But.." video.

  1. Vyth Riel At the state and local level you have more control over government and you can see if it is actually working for you. You also have the ability to move and still remain a US citizen.
    3
  2. praisethecow You mean an over decade long recovery after a recession? That wasn't really great.
    2
  3. Jacob It was the longest recovery after a recession ever under FDR. He was terrible for the economy.
    2
  4. Sterl500 Look at the recovery, they were less than 5 years. If you want to look at the recession and recovery the great depression around 15 years. I know my history, 15 years is greater than 8 years. We saw that slow of a recovery under FDR. You know, if FDR practiced low taxes, low spending and low regulations and saw the results he did I bet you will be all over him. Under those recoveries we saw little to not federal government involvement, that is what I said. When I say little it was nothing compared to what FDR, and now Obama did with massive spending, tax increase (mind you in those times there was no federal income tax) or increase in regulations. You are making lame excuses by saying the great depression was really hard to recover from. The pure fact is that FDR was a very poor economic president. The federal government has been involved in very little recovery except under FDR and Obama, and we have seen slow recoveries. Your supposed trends of railroads and foreign investment has always been constitutional and a part of the economy. They didn't stimulate the economy, it always existed (as in postal roads for example, same with railroads). Wha FDR did along with Obama now was increase spending and federal government involvement beyond what they are allowed to do according to the constitution. Under FDR 47% of people became dependent on federal government income. He spent frivolously on failed projects. He killed cattle to keep price of meat high. It was beyond what was going on in the panic of 1873 and 1837. You need to read up on your history a little more. Federal government involvement has led to slow recovery.
    2
  5. Sterl500 In the 1940s paying employees more meant that businesses had to pay more federal taxes. To get around that they offered healthcare insurance as a way to "pay" employees 100% tax free. Since then it has created the problem of pre-existing conditions, less buyer-seller negotiations with healthcare providers and those trying to receive, and ultimately raising healthcare prices. The federal government creating a tax and raising it restricted business's freedom to pay employees which has led to problems we have now. That is just one of several examples. But I bet your solution to fixing healthcare is allowing the exact group that ruined it to get more involved, like the ACA which is contributing to higher rates now. Face it, the federal government hinders economic growth.
    2
  6. So much for money out of politics.  Oh, I forgot, it is ok if Bernie does it.  But if republicans do it then it is them being sell outs.  Plus, it is early, Super Pacs are not involved yet.  In the  end this is showing hypocrisy by Sanders.
    2
  7. TonyKingOfTheOzone Or reduce the power of the federal government so it can't be bought.
    2
  8. ***** The war and ultimately FDR's death led to the recovery.
    1
  9. TheKinKyMoFo We have faced recessions that were just as bad and we recovered from them quickly. What led to the recovery was the War and ultimately FDR's death. FDR was one of the worst presidents ever.
    1
  10. Sterl500 Dumbest comment ever. Learn some history.
    1
  11. Sterl500 I believe I dealt with you before. I believe I called you out for attacking me on citations but not others who agree with your position. That makes you a fool. Just read up on history, the Panic of 1837, Panic of 1873, after Carter and so on were examples of recessions ending quickly without federal government's involvement to "fix it". The great depression saw the federal government trying to "fix" the economy for the first time ever with massive spending and regulations and taxes, we saw a double dip recession thus a slow recovery. There is a strong correlation that under FDR. Read up on history, it is clear. Sorry you have trouble doing your own research beyond bias left wing sources which pretty much means you can't think for yourself.
    1
  12. Sterl500 I can provide sources but then this turns into a dissertation instead of a minor discussion on youtube. You can choose not to believe me, that is fine. But I am pretty knowledgeable on subjects I choose to comment on.
    1
  13. GravianS "The point of government has ALWAYS been to keep people with some kind of power from running roughshod over everyone else, and to organize, orchestrate and administrate. " I agree, that was the states' responsibility, that federal government had strict limitations. There was never a federal income tax on citizens until around 1913 for a reason. "We as a nation do this really stupid thing where we let people with power and money do whatever they want, then they fuck up the economy and we all go 'oh hey, maybe that was a bad idea and we need to regulate this,' do so and then proceed to forget why we did that to begin with." And you don't think the government can't do that either? With state rights you have more control of the government. Plus, government can use force to control your money, businesses can't. "You can't just let people do whatever the fuck they want when their actions effect an entire nation of people. People with more money and power than sense will always proceed to take really risky and foolish ventures and throw everyone under the bus." Yeah, like an overpowering federal government.
    1
  14. GravianS "The people who run our country, their primary interest should be the people, not how they can line their wallets. Wanna know who's the champion of money in politics? The same fucking group that wanks off to "state's rights" constantly." The more local government is the more it represents the people. You have a stronger representation at the local level than the federal. How many members of congress represents your state? Now how many of those did you vote for? Now compare that to the state and local level. The more local government it the better it works for people because people are able to see what goes on in their own back yard and change it easier. At the federal level you don't have that type of control. You complain about money in politics but how many of those members can you vote for? Also several people don't agree with Bernie Sanders as well, so why force them to follow his rule? And who is going to stop future politicians from being corrupted when Bernie is done? "None of these things you mention even apply to "federal government" until unchecked, wildly irrational "free market capitalism" gets involved. " I didn't know the bank bailouts or corporations paying federal politicians to create rules in their favor was capitalism? I guess you definition of capitalism is different than every textbook out there. "PS: When the government is working for the people, by the people, like it's damn well supposed to, I want them to use force to control the money." I agree to a point. But what is your definition of government working for the people? Ask 100 different people and you can get 100 different answers. Forcing a one size fits all policy won't work. The founding fathers saw this with 13 states and only 300,000 people.
    1
  15. GravianS I agree we have a dual system, but the responsibilities of the federal government is to deal with foreign affairs and enforce the constitution on the states. The states were to deal with domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the fed. Take gay marriage. Marriage is completely a state issue. States determine if they are going to recognize marriage or not. If they don't then great, if they do then they can't discriminate than via the 14th amendment it can't discriminate. "Economic policy is a one size fits all situation." That is completely false. Every state is ran differently and have different cost of living and different sources of income. So yes, we can have one half of the country doing want they want. A big reason why we are having problems is due to the federal government having a one size fits all policy. That federal government can't successfully micromanage the economy. Capitalism ": a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government" The bail outs is not capitalism. That meant the government owned that money and used it to bail out the companies. The bail outs were not capitalism in practice. As I said, your definition seems to not follow what is written in every economic textbook. "They basically whipped everyone up into this celebration of wealth and convinced everyone that it's OK to let people do whatever they want with their money, including corrupting government, and we haven't recovered from it since. " In a capitalistic society the government has no power and thus corrupting them is pointless in that they can't do anything. Buying out politicians to change the economy is not capitalism. As I said, you need to learn the definition of capitalism. The fact you blame Reagan shows how myopic you are. "The so called 'conservative' right in this country doesn't know how to do anything but manipulate and lie to people it seems." The same can easily be said about the left. The left "promises" free stuff to people to buy votes all the while they are giving themselves raises and at least 5 of the top 10 riches counties are around the DC area. The left say a lot of lies and manipulations, really a lot more than the right. Bernie's ideas simply won't work. They will compound our problems and will give more power to the fed. so that future politicians can be bought out.
    1
  16. Obstreperous 1 I would go for that as well over what we have now.
    1
  17. Obstreperous 1 State rights is the best approach. Even with that there are supposed to be limitations on all governments and a means for us to control governments. That is what the constitution is for thus the 14th amendment.
    1
  18. Obstreperous 1 The dip happen because the recovery and growth before the dip was 100% artificial. It wasn't going to last. There's some REAL history for you.
    1
  19. Obstreperous 1 The war led to a recovery because military and foreign spending are constitutional and there was a demand for that type of spending so it wasn't money going to waste, it was an actual investment. That as opposed to the federal government doing domestic spending which is far more times than not a waste and thus hurts the economy. When FDR died his tactics of threaten to stack the courts to get his failed economic policies to pass were no longer going to be used. It allowed for the stoppage of taxes and regulation creation and thus allowed for growth. Even at that his policies still hurt us today.
    1
  20. Obstreperous 1 There are limitations on what government can do that are listed in the constitution. No government can discriminate via the 14th amendment. It is a checks and balance system we had designed but don't follow just because people like you say screw state rights, we need oppression.
    1
  21. Obstreperous 1 FDR did a lot what Hoover supported.
    1
  22. Obstreperous 1 I hope they loved FDR, he did a lot of what Hoover did and pushed for during the election. And his policies led to a long recovery from a recession, basically hindering growth. But hey, I guess starving is better than dying. I mean, we could have achieved recovery and growth, but I guess FDR wasn't all bad.
    1
  23. Michael Brown It was a recession with a slow recovery. FDR tried for the first time to fix the economy through the federal government, the results are clear, it didn't work.
    1
  24. Obstreperous 1 The war made the federal government spending from going to waste to going to investment. That is the difference.
    1
  25. ***** I am a firm believer of putting your money where your mouth is. As of now Bernie isn't doing that. A sign of a poor leader.
    1
  26. ***** What does he stand for? This is no different then someone advocating for abstinence but then having per-maritial sex.
    1
  27. Vyth Riel The big problem is that the federal government has too much power so it can be bought. Reduce the powers of the federal government then money in politics won't be a problem.
    1
  28. Vyth Riel If it sucks for people living there then they should change it or move. In reality they are most likely fine though. You may feel that they suck but they are most likely ok with their situation.
    1
  29. TheGoodDevil7 So you want to create a federal government that has the ability to oppress who you don't like. In this case you oppressing corporations. But when corporations oppress you then you complain. Not really productive. I personally want to remove the power the fed. has and go back to state rights, establish actual control of the government.
    1
  30. Jacob No, I understand that giving the federal government power just compounds our problems.
    1
  31. Jacob I want to end corruption by not allowing for the potential to happen in the first place. Place the limitations on the fed., go back to state rights and we won't have corruption.
    1
  32. Jacob If the people of Wisconsin don't like Governor Walker they can always move or vote him out. They had several elections and even a recall election, it seems like people like him there. Unless you live in WI you have no room to complain.
    1