Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "California To Fight Homelessness With 1% Tax On Millionaires" video.

  1. Utah doesn't have a homeless problem. Also the feds can't do anything because it is unconstitutional. This is a state issue. If you allowed the fed to handle this it would become even more corrupt.
    2
  2. Create a homeless shelter and force them to work. If they refuse to work then throw them in the back of a truck and throw them in prison. The simple fact is that if you have no friends or family to care for you, and you can't be productive in society in any way then you are worthless, period.
    1
  3. Except this doesn't help the poor
    1
  4. "If the federal government wanted to indulge in such, they sure as hell could" No it can't because it violates the 10th amendment.
    1
  5. The duties of the federal government are clearly listed in the constitution. If it isn't then all other responsibilities fall to the states, period. The 10th amendment is used in a lot of ways. For example, K-12 education. To work in the school district I had to take a US constitution class and the 10th amendment was the focus at one point. The reason why is that education is not listed anywhere in the constitution thus the states run K-12 education. They run it, fund it, and set up the curriculum. And that is just one of many examples. Seems like you need to do some more studying of the constitution.
    1
  6. CA has a large economy because it is so large. TX is not far behind CA economically. You can't just say that if CA was it's own country it would be top 7 in economics. If it were it's own country it will be subjected to import and export taxes when something was shipped from between it and other countries. And tourism will get hurt because people from NV, AZ, OR and so on won't be able to travel there without a passport and possible paying more. The US will get their oranges from FL to avoid paying import taxes. In all it is more complicated than what you are making it.
    1
  7. California is the largest state in the country with the largest GDP. That plays a role. If it were its own country then the situation would be vastly different. As far as the "republican states seem to depend on the federal government" That has been debunked which is why not credible politician or source ever mentions it. For starters, what is a "republican state"? In the top 10 Louisiana has a long history of democrat governors, Tennessee is the home of Al Gore. Missouri has a democrat governor. Maine voted for Obama. Whoever brings up the whole "republican states are dependent on the fed" argument is ignorant.
    1
  8. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html http://rare.us/story/exploding-the-lefts-red-state-myths/ See how easy that is to debunk?
    1
  9. There is more to it than that.
    1
  10. "It's a fact that republican states are generally worse off than democrat states." Again, what is a "republican" or "democrat" state? And what do you determine to be "worse off"? You seem to be very ignorant on the subject.
    1
  11. You can't' determine is a state is "republican" or "democrat" based off of the 2012 election. If you want to play that game, when you consider PPP Obama won 6 of the top 10 states in poverty (including DC). Obama won the top 3 poorest states, 4 if you include DC. So you were saying?
    1
  12. For the record, those state were (including DC) CA, DC, FL, NV, NY, HI
    1
  13. Kyle is not correct here. It isn't about saving money, it hinders growth in well. Money is meaningless if wealth isn't created. So his "studies" may say it saves money, but how much wealth is created and destroyed in the process?
    1
  14. You are taking money from people who earned it and gave it value and giving it away to people who have done nothing to earn it. That devalues the dollar and hinders economic growth.
    1
  15. Then that devalues housing. That means rent is going to go up.
    1
  16. "This discussion is very similar to the minimum wage debate where a cooperation could double all their worker's yearly income if the CEO would cut his yearly paycheck by 1%. " That is 100% false.
    1
  17. Create a homeless shelter and put them to work in the community. If they are going to live in the shelters they have to work for the community. They can doing things like clean parks, clean graffiti, a private company like an apartment complex can hire them and they can do landscaping and so on. That will improve the community and society. What grows an economy is getting the most out of your resources. Just giving money away diminishes the value of the dollar. One percent may seem tiny to you, but in reality that is a lot when it is wasted. People don't mind paying taxes if they get their money's worth. But just giving money away is wasteful and hinders economic growth.
    1
  18. You need to learn what money is. When you do then you will see the stupidity of the "universal basic income".
    1
  19. Create a homeless shelter and force them to work to clean up the community. If they refuse then fuck them, throw them in the back of a pickup and drop them off in some prison in the middle of nowhere.
    1
  20. No, I consider myself to be quite smart.
    1