Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Only 9% Of Americans Oppose $1,200 Stimulus Checks" video.

That is true. The other issue is that these issues are complex. I oppose it as I feel we need to reopen the economy and find a more middle ground approach to this issue. Along with that do a tax cut which is, what Kyle said, give us our own money back.
3
Trump offered more to start, next, it comes down to if government is going to force businesses to shut down and kill jobs they must offer help. Instead, they aren't. What makes it worse is now our nation is divided. Around half are basically saying we need to reopen as the government is clearly not going to help us and we rather take are chances with the virus. You have another half that is still freaking out over the virus and support the lock downs, but then beg the government for help, don't receive it and cry. This is really want a lot of our politicians want.
2
So a universal healthcare system is more expensive is what you are saying?
2
Well, you could have had Trump. He pushed for more money but Congress said no.
2
@dianawinters1411 "and the best way to get the economy moving again is to have more people spending money" While at first it might, in the long run it does not. Eventually we need to produce. That is where we are at now, we need to get back to reproducing. Think about where the stimulus money is coming from, via taxes. But if no one is working there will be no tax revenue. Also, a tax cut also means more money in people's money, but it is while they are working.
2
@dianawinters1411 I feel the virus is dealt with, or we just learn to live with it. Now they are talking of a new strain coming out of the UK, convenient timing, just like how the vaccine came out right when Biden was declared the winner. Same with this stimulus bill. To me, this virus was used to divide us as a nation so many politicians can gain power (such as Biden somehow becoming president) and as a whole it is not that dangerous where the lock downs are worse. With that said, there are still moderate approaches to take. Have restaurants allow for dine in but with separation as opposed to completely lock downs like in NY and CA. And again, money does not stimulate the economy in the long run as eventually you have to produce. Early on sure, as in April or May, but it has been about a year. Eventually we have to produce.
2
@randonlando418 people are dying and suffering because of the lock downs. People die all the time, many situations are avoidable. Death is a part of life. What we have to do as a society is determine what approach is best overall. Sure, the lock downs may safe a life or two from the virus, but millions are suffering because of the lock downs. We saw a spike in overdoses. Many small businesses are closed forever. Many people are going to lose their homes and lost their jobs. I care about human life, but at this point it appears we are trading one form of death for another.
1
@Mint403 " Studies showed that the lockdowns didn't do that bad to businesses. " Care to give me those studies? And which businesses are we talking about? Large ones like Amazon and Walmart, or small ones? " Public perception was already changing and fewer people were going even if things were open. " I disagree. The economy was booming. Wages were going up, unemployment was low. "Businesses that are failing were going to fail down the line with or without lockdowns." And what do you base that off of? Even at that, if they do fail, usually another pops up. We are not seeing that though. Consider that usually a business will survive around 5 years where this year we are seeing 60% close. In less than a year we are seeing more close than we will in a 5 year span.
1
@randonlando418 a mask mandate. Almost every state has one. My state has one and we are seeing high cases. Masks do not do anything.
1
@randonlando418 how many of those 3000 were near death to begin with? Nursing home patients and assistant living facilities make up 1% of the population but around 40% of the deaths. We just had a college football season where 3 of the major conferences had a full season with fans in the stands and no hospitalizations. A lot of the coaches and players were not even wearing masks. Many college students are out partying, become infected and do not even know. This virus is not that dangerous. We are being scam.
1
@randonlando418 if you fund it more than you are admitting that it cost more.
1
@randonlando418 because we offer the most. For example, we offer more CT scans per capita compared to the rest of the world. You compare to Canada where people have died waiting for "elective" heart surgery. In the US we have much less waiting times for care. That is not to say we do not have problems nor shortcomings, nor that a universal healthcare system is all bad. Just saying there are pros and cons. Sure, a universal healthcare system will benefit in many do not have to worry about costs. But when it comes to timing and quality, it is poor compared to a private system.
1
@50jakecs I have compared. The US spends more but also offers more advanced care with shorter wait times. There is a lot to it but usually the more you pay the better the quality.
1
@randonlando418 "in terms of quality of healthcare, the US lags behind many developed nations with universal systems" That is not true. We offer more advanced care compare to any other nation with shorter wait times.
1
Because someone still has to go out and produce those things. It isn't like the magically appear out of nowhere.
1
Here is a great idea! Let us let this same government run our healthcare, college education, more of our money via higher taxes, etc. Let us give them more power. I mean, this year really showed how great government is at helping people.
1
Evan Zuppardo not true. It wasn't the private sector that shut down our economy and then refused to offer us help.
1
Evan Zuppardo if government has limited power it has nothing to sell. Limit the powers of the government and bribes won't be an issue.
1
Evan Zuppardo who has the power to make laws? Government. You limit the type of laws they can make which again, limits their power and they have nothing to sell.
1
Evan Zuppardo it used to be the only federal tax was a tax on the states based on population. While I do agree with that method in many ways, I agree more with a federal flat income tax and a consumption tax. That's it. When you start pushing the idea of some unequal tax code, even a progressive tax, you are now opening the door for government to create tax laws that, while on the surface may benefit the working class, but really only benefits the rich with loopholes. And the rich can get away with it because they can afford lawyers and accountants. I know of many people who do not know tax write offs they can do. That is an example of what happens when you give government too much power. You gave them power to write a complex tax code that ends up benefiting the rich and screwing over the middle class. If you limited it to simply a flat income tax and a consumption tax you have no loopholes.
1
Possibly, unless they act like teachers and become unionized. In which you then face the risk of strikes and lack of efficiency. M4A will have benefits, but also problems.
1
@BenReillySpydr1962 what do you mean have more than enough production? We have a shortage of medical supplies for example.
1