Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "O'Reilly: Bernie Is The Most 'Radical' u0026 'Disassociated' Politician In My Lifetime" video.

  1. +Liberals Follow the Freebies Bernie's team of unicorns that shits out gold.
    1
  2. +Connor Kenney "They're not freebies dipshit, his policies are paid for by taxes, same as everything else that is government funded." It would be free for you because someone with a higher income will pay a higher rate but get the same quality.
    1
  3. +Liberals Follow the Freebies The responses you are getting are quite funny and sad. People are screaming "our taxes will pay for it". They don't realize that when those with more money are taxed at a higher rate and get the same quality of goods and services than it is free for those with lower income. Hopefully they can understand this. Say you have two cars exactly the same in every way both valued at $10,000 a piece. One person who earns only $25,000 a year pays $5000 for the car. Another pays who says earn $150,000 a year pays $15,000 to not only pay for the other car but for the other half of the car the first person only paid $5000 for. All simply because they earn more money. That is why they are "freebies".
    1
  4. +Alejandro Garcia The US has arguably the best healthcare system in the world.
    1
  5. +Alejandro Garcia http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  6. +Alejandro Garcia Did you even read the book?
    1
  7. +Alejandro Garcia I suggest you read it.
    1
  8. +DjHamHam411 Actually that is not his mindset at all. The fact is that Bernie is creating two problems here. One is that he is limiting success. If any company becomes too large then he will use force from the government to shut it down. That is not a system you want. Another is that Bernie is creating a government that is too big to fail. With him wanting the federal government to run healthcare, education, jobs, infrastructure and our money with higher taxes then if the government fails at all then the entire country goes under. Bernie is compounding our problems.
    1
  9. +azul8811 What do you think he is doing with the big banks? He wants to break them up because they are too big in his opinion. What is going to stop him from doing it with other businesses? How would the government run jobs? Bernie said himself he wants to spend money giving jobs to people. After he kills jobs with the min. wage, increasing regulations on energy companies, and increasing taxes he will have to do something about the increase unemployment....to him it is creating jobs. How would he be running education? Ever heard of the "Golden Rule"? Those who have the gold makes the rules. If the government is funding education you know they are going to control it. City and state governments can provide infrastructure, not federal unless it is roads for the postal service. Medicare is unconstitutional. Medicare is losing money and would not work. As is the US already has arguably the best healthcare system in the world. Why do such a drastic change to go to a system that we clearly can't afford? And worse yet, give the federal government, the same corrupt federal government Bernie complains about, more power.
    1
  10. So Kyle acts like a child for the first minute and then goes on to display his lack of intellect on the issue. The whole concept of "too big to fail" comes from the federal government, the same federal government Bernie wants to expand. It wasn't the free market that bailed them out, it was the fed. In capitalism those banks will go under. Breaking up any big business is anti-capitalism. I don't see how Kyle thinks it is saving it. There are a lot of problems with Bernie, but this video is pointing out two of them. One is that he wants to place a cap on success in the private sector. If he feels a company is too big then he will use force to break it up for no good reason besides jealousy of his supporters and his hatred to success. Like what Bill said with Arby's, you just can't shut it down just because you don't like their food. The second issue is that Bernie is creating a government that is too big to fail. With Bernie wanting to control healthcare and education, infrastructure spend and jobs then if government fails in any way then the entire country will go down with it. It is making the situation worse.
    1
  11. +Mortiis558 Did I say not try? No. I am saying that Bernie's plans will make the situation worse, not better.
    1
  12. +Paige Anderson "Kyle was trying to make fun of Bill." Yes, by acting like a child. "Bernie has explained that yes, he will break up the big banks if president, but that will give more power to smaller state/community banks. " No, it would give more power to the government. If you are running a company than you can only become so big because if you become too big, by some arbitrary standard set by Bernie, than you will be broken up. Compare that to a top athlete winning too many championships or a top scientist publishing too many papers and someone forcing them to stop. Also there are advantages to having big banks. "I'm pretty sure that a lot of American people whose jobs were lost under the 2008 recession, had to give up their homes during the mortgage crisis," Recessions happen. The bank bail outs slowed down recovery. Also the FHA has a role in the housing crisis. "But, if something is using its power for corrupt reasons, it has every right to be stopped!" I agree, like the federal government. If we follow the constitution and limit the powers of the federal government then these problems would not exist. "Why would controlling certain areas of government be oh-so-horrible? " Because you have to have control of the government. You do that with more local government. Too much government is just as bad as no government. "For example, the state governments that AREN'T allowing programs like Obamacare" Ever thought those citizens of those states want that? Why do you want to ram you lifestyle and form of government down their throats?
    1
  13. +Mortiis558 "Do you think the 80 or so people that own more than half of the worlds wealth have "earned" it." A few things. In short, yes. To expand you have to learn what wealth is. Wealth is not income. You have to understand why there is wealth inequality. In the US the average home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth. Some people, like me have negative wealth. That is because I have a college loan that makes me have negative value. If someone has no other assets and only $10 in their pocket then they have more wealth than 25% of the US. Wealth inequality is not bad, it is actually good for the country because it means the wealth exists. That means the country's economy is growing. Sure someone who is rich has a better car than me, but I still have a better can than someone from the 90s. I have a smart phone where cell phones did not exist until the late 80s. "If it gets to the point where you or you and a few friends can fuck the entire worlds economy just to make more money you literally cant spend in your lifetime, what the fuck is point of getting any bigger?" Why punish success? Also if we have a system where smaller businesses can compete then if a larger company fails the smaller ones can take over. We create such a system with simplified taxes and lower regulations.
    1
  14. +Mortiis558 "But when those banks failed back in the day, I think that instead of being bailed out, the market should have let the smaller banks fill in the gap." I 100% agree. That is what would have happened. "but as it stands there is no reason those same banks or companies wont try something else with the same disastrous results. " It was the federal government that bailed them out. The problem lies with the fed., not with the banks. "I just think that a corporation should be focused on more than just getting as much profit any way they can" The bottom line is profit, period. " And if it gets to the point where one or two companies matter so much that them going under can tank an entire country or even the world's economy, that maybe they don't need that much power." In the free market we wouldn't hit that point, especially today with advanced technology and media. A lot of the rich do share their money to local communities and people. "As an example, Bill Gates (who I have no problem with and I think he is one of the better "mega-rich" people) could spend literally 1 million dollars a day for the next 20 years and still have approx $36 million left over. What is the realistic point in having that much money?" He is worth that much, he does not have that much money. Plus if he did have that much money if he gave it away it would become worthless.
    1
  15. +Al Z Bill is an opinion guy, he has said that numerous times.
    1