Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bill Maher u0026 Bernie Sanders Explain 'Socialism' To America" video.

  1. +rjdulac Every other recession in US history was recovered from in around 5 years with little to no federal government involvement. Come 1929 a recession hits. Come FDR and his new deal and we don't recover until the 1940s, over a decade later. There is a reason why it was a depression.
    10
  2. +StudentLife The New Deal turned a recession into a depression.
    9
  3. +TheRuthlessRanter Maher asked the same question, Bernie had no answer. He just reverted back to his talking points. He is a senile old man.
    6
  4. +TheRuthlessRanter Exactly.
    4
  5. +Zul Far Because his policies simply won't work.
    3
  6. +rjdulac It explains a lot. How come under FDR we have had the only depression this country has ever seen?
    3
  7. +Shelia Darden You link didn't work just like the New Deal didn't work.
    3
  8. +rjdulac Yeah, as I said, recessions happen. Every other recession was recovered from in around 5 years with minimal government involvement. Enter FDR and his new deal and we have a depression.
    2
  9. +rjdulac It was a recession, FDR turned it into a depression.
    2
  10. Bernie fell flat on his face in this interview. The best when Bill Maher asked about why Vermont could not even pass socialized healthcare and Bernie had no answer. I actually respected Bill for once, he asked tough question to get into detail on Bernie's plan and Bernie just curled up into a ball and shouted his one liners. Bernie is starting to get attention and he is falling flat on his face. This is going to be hilarious.
    1
  11. +CaptainDave You don't want to give the federal government that much power. You never want to isolate that much power in one place.
    1
  12. +Michael Quetel He is right in a way.
    1
  13. +Michael Quetel To add to it, Europe has only been doing socialist policies for a short time. They lack productivity to keep up and it is starting to fall apart with higher prices and less wealth. In a generation or two it will be a mess.
    1
  14. +ivanolajozza No they don't. And they are being tried in the US in some ways and they are failing Vermont could not even pass single payer.
    1
  15. If you go down a list of things you find out that most are funded locally or mostly locally. Roads are an example. Funding for roads is a very small percent. People don't want to expand the federal government. That is the issue. You won't get democracy at the federal level. Really what is doing is showing the problem with these federal programs. Medicare and Medicaid are running out of money and spending is increasing. Expanding it is not a solution to make it better. Bernie was asked by Maher that paying for all of this will simply be done by raising taxes on the 1%. Bernie said that we will have to go lower, well how much? And when money runs out guess what.....we go lower until everyone's taxes are now higher. Socialism on the large scale does not work and just leads to more problems.
    1
  16. +Shelia Darden The recession started in 1929. In the US history every recession took around 5 years to recover from with little to no federal government involvement. Enter FDR in 1933 and then his new deal. What happened? Well a depression happened. We didn't see this in the Panic of 1837 or the Panic of 1873 and so on. But we did during the great depression. What happen under Bush was a recession, they happen. After Bush what did you have? The bail outs, massive spending and tax increases, much like the new deal. Hear we are 8 years later and we still haven't recovered yet.
    1
  17. +daveruda Most of our problems we have today in this country can be linked to the New Deal. The New Deal turned a recession into a depression, and then expanded the powers of the federal government to where future politicians took advantage of it.
    1
  18. +Derick Rhodes (BadAtGameBadAtLife) No, they were being implemented around 1933. Based off of history if left alone the the recession would have been done by 1935 at the latest. Instead it lasted another 8 years and then BAM, a war and FDR's death led to a recovery.
    1
  19. +rjdulac It happens.
    1
  20. +Derick Rhodes (BadAtGameBadAtLife) Look at spending during that time, it increased and it was the first time it has increased at a high rate that was not during a time of war. FDR tried to spend our way out of the recession much like Obama tried as well. Funny how during FDR's time and during Obama's time were the only two times that it took over 5 years to recover from a recession. The New Deal was a disaster. It prolong the recovery where only the war took us out of and grew the size of the federal government causing many problems we see today. Any problem we have in this country can be tied to the federal government. "please explain what the fuck kind of retroactive nonsense happened the led to 4 years of Great Depression prior to the New Deal even existing." Are you talking about 1929 to 1933? Recessions happen. We have seen them before and after the great depression. You never hear about them in history books in schools because the federal government did little to nothing to "fix" the economy and they were over in around 5 years or less. The main reason why got out of the great depression was because every other country was at war and we entered late. Afterwards every other country was rebuilding thus globally we were ahead of the game. It is all catching up to us now.
    1
  21. +Solthiel This is not a retelling of history. It is all there. Noticed how you have never heard of other recessions in the past such as the Panic of 1873 or the Panic of 1837 and so on? Because the federal government did little to nothing to "fix" the economy and recovery was in around 5 years or less. Under FDR we saw a depression. That is not a success. I don't know about you but passing the New Deal and seeing the country go through the depression for the first time ever is not something I would be proud of. Under FDR we also saw the expansion of the federal government. Every problem we have in this country can be tied to the federal government. "  Glass-Steagal was instated in 1933 and what resulted was 66 years of relative economic stability." Actually not true. We have seen at least a handful of recessions since then. One example is in the late 70s to early 80s, during the Carter years. We saw a recession. After Reagan was elected the federal government did little to nothing to "fix" the economy and by 1982 we had a recovery. Anyway based off what you said when Glass-Steagal was repealed we should have saw a recession immediately, we didn't. You want to blame Wall Street. Blame the fed. for the bailouts and giving $85 billion a month to the stock market.
    1
  22. +Derick Rhodes (BadAtGameBadAtLife) The housing bubble was 9 years later. That is a rather long time. Even with that it is questionable if Glass Steagal even was involved. For example if you read here https://www.uvu.edu/woodbury/docs/summaryoftheprimarycauseofthehousingbubble.pdf You see that in the mid 90s the federal government compelled banks to give out home loans to low income individuals. "We did have 66 years of 'relative' economic stability compared to the Great Depression and our current Great Recession" If you read that paper there was a housing bubble in the 1980s as well. So much for stability.
    1
  23. +Derick Rhodes (BadAtGameBadAtLife) The paper never mentioned Glass-Steagal once. So yes, I have read the paper. Forcing banks to give out bad loans is a major part of the problem. Afterwards they were bailed out. That is the problem. In a free market banks would not take such risk in giving out loans to low income individuals and in a free market they will not get bailed out. I know what the term "relative" mean. The pure fact is that we have seen recessions in the past. Every recession in the history of this country except for 2 were recovered from in around 5 years or less. The two that took the longest time to recover from were the great depression and now. During both times we saw massive federal government intervention to try to "fix" it. They were massive spending, increase taxes and push for more regulations. All the times were we saw a fast recovery the federal government did little to nothing. All the ingredients were there for the recent housing bubble burst. It happens. If the federal government were to sit back and do nothing then we would have recovered from it by now. Instead what the federal government did was cure a symptom, not the actual disease. No different than during the great depression where massive spending temporary fixed the economy but then it came crashing down. This time the recession stopped, but we did not see growth to catch us back up. Programs like Glass-Steagal are unnecessary and are part of the problem. This is how messes like this are create, the federal government feels that they can fix things when in reality everything the touch breaks. In a free market any bank that gives out bad loans and fails would fall apart. Banks will end up regulating themselves.
    1
  24. +Derick Rhodes (BadAtGameBadAtLife) This last recession was no different then previous recessions. The difference is that the federal government tried to get involved in "fixing" it. Because of that recovery has been slow. We did not extend the Bush tax cuts, everyone's taxes were raised. We had a large stimulus package. So saying "we haven't dont anything substantial to try and "fix" this one." is completely false. "That only thing we've spent substantial funds on were bail-outs, and without them, we WOULD have sunk into another great depression. " That is not true. It was the bail-outs that made this recovery slow. "The disease is the greed of the financial sector. " The greed is always there. In a free market they have to actually cater to the consumers to earn money. With what we have now with an overpowering federal government they can get help from the government. We saw that with the bail outs and with the fed pumping $85 billion a month into the stock market. "You still haven't presented any form of data to back up this claim that government spending somehow impacts economic recovery from recessions." Look at the two recessions that we have had the slowest recoveries from. They were times where the federal government tried to "fix" the economy through spending and higher taxes. You don't hear about the recession of the late 70s, or the Panic of 1873 or 1837. That is because they were short and the federal government did little to nothing to try to "fix" the economy. Glass-Steagal is unnecessary. Why do we need it? And even with it we still had recessions and housing bubbles, so it obviously did not do it's job. All Glass-Steagal does is give more power to the federal government at which it can dole out to the highest bidder.
    1
  25. +Derick Rhodes (BadAtGameBadAtLife) The reason why the recession in the late 70s and early 80s did not look a big is because the federal government did not go crazy like Obama and the democrat congress did recently. Recovery was quick. Taxes were raised on every. The payroll tax was increased. The tax cut was extended for one year but it went back up. Taxes on a certain percent went up. Also the ACA is a tax by law. So yes taxes did go up. "In a free market, companies can stack the deck in their favor to make it literally impossible for consumers to choose anyone else" That is not true. That is only true with aid of government force, such as a company lobbying the government to create laws to prevent other companies from competing. For example Walmart pushed for a higher min. wage knowing it will hurt smaller companies. Monopolies develop through government. In a free market companies compete. All a company can do is offer you a job and a product. You don't have to take it . In a free market rival companies will push for the benefit of the employee and consumer knowing that is how they attract workers and customers. Monopolies don't form. If there is a company that does not keep society happy then a rival company will take advantage of that. "Correlations does not equal causation. " Lamest excuse every. There is a common denominator there. I can easily turn it around. Prove that the New Deal and Glass-Steagal helped the recession and prevented others. As of right now the data is on my side. Glass-Steagal was implemented and a recession turned into a depression. Since then we have seen a handful of recessions. During the most recent recession we have seen spending and increase in taxes like in the 30s and guess what, another slow recovery. How does economic stimulus prolong a recession? Because it is all fake. The money pumped back into the economy is worthless. It is especially worthless now that it is not tied to the gold standard anymore. Investors are not going to invest when worthless money is being pumped into the system. There is little wealth creation at that point. I showed you how even under Glass-Steagal there were still recessions and a housing bubble. The evidence is there.
    1
  26. +Derick Rhodes (BadAtGameBadAtLife) Ok, I will use the correlation/causation idea. Glass-Steagal being repealed does not mean it caused the housing bubble. Correlation does not equal causation. There.
    1
  27. Kyle should play the entire video where Bernie falls apart.
    1