Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "AMAZIN': Jesse Lee Peterson Vs Kyle Kulinski" video.

What facts and logic?
4
This shows your intelligence. JLP is on a radio show and he is mandated to have scheduled commercial breaks.
2
Kyle got owned by repeating the same talking points he always does with little to no logic behind them. Just saying "drug wars" or "that is not true" are not arguments.
2
Sage, take the argument about the "working poor" that Kyle brings up. JLP is correct that those working full time are not poor and those that are need to manage their money better. Around 2% of full time workers collect welfare, most who collect welfare are part time or unemployed. JLP did a poor job at presenting those points but Kyle was not much better. Saying "that is not true" is not an argument.
2
@keilafleischbein59 , neither did Kyle. Take the point of full time workers not being poor. Statistically that is true, but Kyle denies it.
1
the one winged angel, anyone can say "that is not true", you have to give me proof it is not true. Kyle does not do that. That is similar to Cenk saying "google it".
1
I did not agree with the whole racism never existed and feel JLP is wrong on that point. But Kyle was wrong on many points as well. Kyle saying the parties switched in the 60s is arguably false. Kyle also did not explain why the drug war is the problem. The drug war does not explain why many black men turn to crime and refuse to raise their kids.
1
Nominay, Kyle suggests there is a policy re-alignment because republicans became racist. That is not true. If you really want to make a claim on which party is the racist party one can claim it is the democrats for their soft bigotry of low expectations. There is a lot to this but one can argue that democrats are the victim party where republicans are the equal rights party. Republicans pushed to end slavery on the idea of equal rights for all and democrats made southerners and slave owners out to be the victim as they were being oppressed by the government. Now democrats make blacks out to be the victim where republicans just wants equal rights for all. Now do I completely agree with this? No, there is a lot to it. But consider the idea that democrats are creating policy to hold blacks down first as keeping them as slaves and now making them dependent on the government.
1
@chezeus1672 , nice link with no citations. Read this. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/09/misunderstanding_the_southern_realignment_107084.html On your source the best part was how it said that in the 60s southern democrats became republicans and became republicans after that. But in 1976 Jimmy Carter won the south. In 1968 George Wallace won a lot of the south where he was a democrat. The republicans did not take control of the Congress in the south until 1995. Immediately your source is wrong.
1
@Nominay , the Southern Strategy is a myth.
1
@theheartsstory , single payer healthcare and free college can arguably be oppressive. Bernie's Medicare for all bill will make private insurance illegal where they only option you have is the government system unless you are very rich. With free college, that can arguably be indoctrination. Also, if after a K-12 education if you need the government to educate you than you are a lost cause. After a K-12 education you should be able to educate yourself and not rely on the government.
1
@Nominay , what's your point?
1
@Nominay , one quote does not do it. Some argued that it was religion that caused the change, some argued economics. Also, as I showed democrats controlled the south in Congress until the mid 1990s.
1
@Nominay , give me more sources. I am very open minded. You claim I am not which means you can't provided more sources. I am simply challenging you to provide more sources. So please, provide more. I gave you some and I have to some data to counter what you said. It seems you are the one who can't defend you stance.
1
@Nominay , you are "done" with this discussion because you can't provide more evidence.
1
@Nominay , with every comment I gave you are counter argument. It seems like you ran out.
1
@Nominay , so you have no other evidence is what you are saying so you give up? I am very open minded and love learning new things.
1
Jesse did not get cornered. The discussion was going nowhere as neither side can really support their ideas. Kyle's response is "increase the min. wage" which rewards failure which is what JLP is arguing at that point. This debate did not accomplish much.
1
This was a waste. Neither side really sold their point. Kyle bringing up talking points with no logic or reason and JLP not giving much support for his ideas is not much of a debate. If I had to choose who won I will pick JLP but barely.
1
Frank Lance, you can call me an idiot all you want. But you have no way of justifying it. I can justify my stance. Take the argument Kyle was making about people working full time and are poor. The reality is that only around 2% of full time workers are collecting welfare. Most on welfare are part time workers are unemployed. However, Kyle feels that there are many full time workers who are poor when stats shows that is not true. JLP is correct that many of them could mange their money better. Kyle just gives a talking point of the "working poor" while denying reality.
1
Chen, why? Because I use facts and logic and instead of talking points like Kyle does?
1
Angelica, I won't comment on the god issue as that is irrelevant and mainly personal. Being liberal is arguably feminine. Not saying that is wrong, but most males who are liberals are betas. Racism theses days is a null point. It hardly exists. The left keeps pushing the idea that it does when it doesn't. You claim that Jesse is too far gone and to a degree I agree, but Kyle is too far gone to the left as well. Him saying "that is not true" is not an argument.
1
Frank Lance, read the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities report entitled "Most Working-Age Snap Participants Work, But often in Unstable Jobs" Most who collect welfare either work part time or not at all. Welfare arguably hinders growth as you are giving money to people who don't produce. There are many jobs that can be done to improve a community that people on welfare can do. In my neighborhood, along with other low income neighborhoods, there is a lot of litter in the streets that make it look unsightly. People on welfare can pick that up. At the laundry mat someone can work there sweeping the sidewalks or wiping down the machines. At the local Mcdonalds they used to hire people to clean off the tables, now that does not even get done. Reality is that many on welfare can work but don't. It holds down society. Most on welfare have a hard time keeping a job and that is shown through the same BLS stats you present to me. Saying "millions" is not a hard number. He gives no hard stat. That is a problem with Kyle, he gives talking points. According to census data in 2012 6.7% of people who worked full time collected welfare. Read the report entitled "Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Participation in Government Programs, 2009-2012: Who Gets Assistance?" There is a point that one has to be responsible.
1
Frank Lance, and I showed you how many of the "working poor" work part time, unstable jobs. Very few work full time and collect welfare. Kyle is preaching about raising the min. wage when full time workers are not the ones who are poor, it is part time and temp. You don't help them by raising the min. wage as they are the workers who will be laid off first. I read what you said and I gave you a counter argument using the same data you use.
1
Frank, also Kyle talks about "surviving". These people are alive so they are surviving.
1
Frank Lance, there are 52 weeks in a year. 27 weeks is considered an "unstable job". That is my point. A lot of the poor work unstable jobs. Thanks for proving my point.
1
Frank Lance, read the report entitle "Sorry, Bernie, Few Full-Time Workers Live in Poverty" According to Census data 2% of full time workers who worked year round were in poverty. You are lowering the standards by looking at just 27 weeks. Again, poor people work unstable jobs. Working for only 27 weeks is not working full time. Min. wage increases does create job loss for low skill workers. States with higher min. wages have higher teenage unemployment. Here is the issue with the study you point at. There are many factors outside of the min. wage the influences unemployment. Take, for example, Emeryville, CA. It had for years the highest min. wage in the nation but low unemployment. Why? Because some of their top employers are Pixar and pharmaceutical companies. Seattle is able to raise their min. wage and get away with it because some of their top employers are the headquarters for Boeing, Amazon and Starbucks. They had jobs that already pay a high wage to begin with, so the min. wage those markets set was high. It is like this. Say the market set the min. price for milk at $3 a gallon. If the government were to come in and mandate a min.price on milk to $2.50/gal there will be no decrease in the sales of milk. Why? Because the market set the min. price of milk at $3/gal. If the government were to demand a min. price on milk to $3.50/gal their could be a drop in sales in milk, maybe. If other prices fall or if the economy is growing maybe not. A small increase in like that might not have a negative effect. But if it were raised to $5/gal than yes, sales would drop. The same is with wages. If an increase in $0.25 is done that might be small enough that you won't see any real changes due to other factors. For example, in my town when the min. wage went up from $5.15 to $7.25 in two years the company I worked for countered by no longer giving out raises to more veteran workers. So employment numbers did not drop. One of those studies looking at neighboring counties did not look at payroll data which makes their data flawed. You see, I am well read on these issues. You are welcome for your economics lesson.
1
Frank Lance, did you read what I linked? Around 2% of people worked full time year round receive welfare, that's it. When you lower the standards to 27 weeks you will get an inflated stat. You have to be honest here. People who are poor work unstable or part time jobs. That is a fact. They are not working full time. Ah, the whole "adjusted for inflation" argument. You do know there is more than one way to calculated inflation? You have the CPI, GDP deflator, PCE, Boskin Commission adjustment and so on. So what measure do you want to use. Also, not everything inflates in the market. The price of some goods and services go up where some go down. Take, for example, the brick cell phone. In the late 80s it cost close to $4000 in today's money. Would you pay $4000 for a brick cell phone today? No. My smart phone was free and it is not only a phone but a calculator, a radio, I can look at the internet, I can text, play games, etc. Much more advanced than a brick cell phone and much cheaper. But according to you I should have paid at least $4000 for that cell phone. The same is with labor. How much is the Blockbuster employer worth? $0. But according to you not only should we still have Blockbuster employees nation wide, but they should be paid greater than $7.25/hr. You can't just tie the min. wage to inflation, it isn't that easy. Economics is way more complex. Noticed how I broke down the flaws of looking at the min. wage and employment? Noticed how I pointed to one of the studies you did and how they did not look at payroll data making their study flawed? You tell me to "cite sources" which shows to me you don't even read the ones you cited. How am I to take you seriously? As for buying power and stimulating the economy, there are several flaws there. Min. wage workers are not the ones driving the economy. Economist Christina Romer stated that if you raised the min. wage to $9.50/hr, and assuming no job loss, that it will grow the economy around 0.01%. That is insignificant. Less than 4% of the work force earns the min. wage and only around 3% of the work full time. They are a minute part of the overall economy. Next, if they are going to spend that money that quickly as opposed to invest it, then they are poor for a reason. They are bad at money management. Finally, what drives the economy is producing, not spending. When more is produced you have more wealth that goes around. That makes goods and services better and cheaper. Back to the cell phone example, it was free for me because a lot of cell phones are produced which drives down the cost. Thus I have money to spend elsewhere. My buying power is increased due to increases in wealth even though my salary was not increased. So no, it isn't as simple as raising wages. As for the incentive to create more goods and technology, that is already there. When new technology first hits the market it is expensive. Companies build new technology out of competition and out of people simply wanting better things. If the people don't have the money they will lower the cost and find a way to do so.
1
Frank Lance, I have read the sources. Working 27 weeks in a year is being a temp worker. That is an unstable job. 1. Wages are not behind productivity. You are looking at overall productivity. Overall productivity has gone up because of technology. Those who invested in technology or work in it has seen a wage increase. Look up "Skilled Biased Technological Change". Just because the engineer is more productive does not mean they fry cook at McDonalds is. In fact, if you look at BLS stats for unit labor cost, which is hourly compensation over productivity, it is positive for restaurant workers. That means in the food service industry the cost of labor is outpacing productivity. 2. I gave plenty of evidence on why you can't tie the min. wage to inflation. Not everything inflates. Again, why are we not paying $4000 for cell phones? 3. Innovation is far from stagnate. 4. Production stems from competition and investment. If people don't have the money to consume then businesses will lower prices. "Shit ton" is not a scientific term.
1
Neither side was good.
1
Kyle struggled against JLP where JLP most likely won this debate. He would not do well with Crowder, Shapiro and Coulter.
1
SodaBoy628, prove it.
1
Fluff, if I were forced to pick a winner I will pick JLP, but that is not saying much. That is like how the Raiders beat the Cardinals last week, both teams are bad. Kyle just repeated his same talking points that can easily be debunked by someone with much more knowledge on the issues.
1
Son Of Atlus, according to Census data in 2012 only around 10.7% of full time workers receive some sort of welfare for at least one month compared to 33% who were unemployed or 17.6% who worked part time. If you go by how long they were on it 48% of that 10.7% were on welfare for less than 12 months where 22% was on it between 37 to 48 months. For part time 33% were on it between 37 to 48 months. And for welfare that can include housing assistance, snap, medicaid, etc. Receiving just one of those aids places you on the list. The idea that full time workers are poor is mainly false. Most poor work par time, unstable jobs. Read the report entitled "Most Working-Age SNAP Participants Work, But Often in Unstable Jobs" By the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When Kyle goes on a rant of full time workers being poor it is mostly false. Most who are poor work part time or not at all. Doing something like raising the min. wage does not help at that point. To answer your question we can push for it. It can also be taught by parents. When parents just live off of welfare and don't work that teachers bad habits for the kids. We should stop rewarding failure.
1
Gurvinder, so Shapiro with a law degree and many best selling books is a moron? Same with Coulter?
1
Most min. wage earners are not poor. In fact, around 90% of workers earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor. As for full time workers according to census data in 2012 around 6.7% of full time workers collected welfare. Keep in mind that the poverty rate is around 15%. It isn't as easy as you are making it out to be, there are many variables involved.
1
Racism is essentially non-existent now. It mainly exists in the political left when they cry racism.
1
SpicyTunah, 1. You don't want to legalize drugs as they can do a lot of harm to someone physically and mentally. If you do want to legalize drugs then you should be against government run healthcare or use the tax dollars in drugs to fund a government run healthcare because drug addicts are going to use healthcare the most. Also, it is foolish to point to the drug war for why we have violence. You don't need to do or sell drugs or join gangs. Kyle pointing to the drug war is foolish. You talking about making drugs legal to help the cause, why not make murder legal at that point? 2. People are poor due to their life choices. You blame companies leaving. All throughout history jobs left where people have to move to new jobs. A major issue is the taxes and regulations set by government which caused the companies to leave faster, but in the end the companies left. People just need to move onto new jobs. Just like how the tractor replaced many jobs in the farm, people went to new jobs. As for people making enough to survive, well, they are alive. Also, people who work full hardly use welfare. It ranges anywhere from 2 to 10 percent of full time workers using welfare where close to 20% of part time workers collect welfare. The reality is that the stats don't support Kyle on the idea that people work full time and are poor.
1
The issue is that many people don't pay taxes and receive the same goods and services off of tax payers dollars. Thus it is free for them at that point.
1
@MrInuhanyou123 , I find it ironic how you ask for stats but never hold Kyle to the same standard. Take the point of JLP saying that people work full time and are poor are not managing their money well. There is a lot of truth there. https://economics21.org/html/sorry-bernie-few-full-time-workers-live-poverty-2094.html https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/most-working-age-snap-participants-work-but-often-in-unstable-jobs There is a decent amount of people who remain on welfare as opposed to finding full time work. Kyle refuses to accept that. Kyle always completely dismisses the other side because he is a partisan hack.
1