Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Elizabeth Warren Destroys Reaganomics In 1 Minute" video.

  1. I guess Warren never read an economics book.......or a history book. The reason why the government is helping businesses is because of big government that Warren supports.  It is because of regulators, they regulations were made in the politicians favor. That is the system that Warren wants to set up.  Oh, she will say she is doing it for the people, but in reality she is doing it for herself.  She is doing it to win.  Like FDR promised free stuff for years, but lead us into the slowest recovery every. Warren is too ignorant and too radical to even be in congress, let alone president.  But so was Obama and he got elected. 
    1
  2. Ylze Tyr I am not ignoring you.  One, work has me bogged down, so I am more selective in who I respond to.  Another is that you criticize me for not stating "facts" or giving any supporting evidence.  At the same time you cited a government website on the min. wage when the administration in charge is pushing for a $10.10 min. wage, and where did they get that number?    Fact is that you are very ignorant on what is going on.  What Warren supports is larger government.  She is complaining how the "police" on wall street were removed.  And how they have tax payer support.  This wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have a system where the federal government didn't have limitations and can do that stuff at will.  Warren is setting up a federal government that can do what it wants at will, and when future politicians come who is going to stop them from taking advantage of the system?  As with Herman Cain's 9 9 9 tax plan, he was asked what is going to stop the future president from raising the new tax the federal government now has?  He couldn't answer the question.  Or how my liberal professor made me read a book that ripped on Reagan and J. Edgar Hoover and what they did during the Berkley riots.  I said you can't blame them, the system was designed that way and they took advantage of it and Reagan won the presidency. Here people are blaming individuals.  Warren is blaming individuals but is setting up the exact system that can be exploited by future generations.  We have seen this happen a lot which is why I said she needs to read a history book.  She is simply focusing on herself right now.  When she is out of office than she won't care.  Future politicians in her place will take advantage and create regulations that favor them.  You, like so many liberals feel that individuals in the federal government are at fault, but instead are too ignorant to realize that it is the system that is at fault.  I guess what we need are more taxes and more regulations on top of the ones we currently have to regulate the regulators. Like when Warren created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not to be confused with the already existing Bureau of Consumer Protection. Remember in the last recession that the big banks got bigger.  It wasn't the free market that did that but instead your elected official that creates the regulations.
    1
  3. Ylze Tyr Point 1:  setting up the exact system that can be exploited by future generations That means a lot.  There were supposed to be limitations on the federal government because we are supposed to have a checks and balance system to where the federal government were not to have too much power to become oppressive and change the rules in their favor.  Warren wants to create these laws with ease to allow the federal government to regulate the market and economy the way they want.  That may be great and may help out the citizens.  Now what is going to happen when future politicians come in and change the laws, with ease, to benefit them?  It was similar to Herman Cain when he wanted to easily create the 9 9 9 tax plan, he wanted to create another tax.  It might have worked.  But, what is going to stop the future president from raising that new tax?  It as put in place easily, so how it is going to be stopped.  It is exactly comparable to what Warren wants.  She wants the government to regulate itself with more regulators.  Now who is going to regulate the regulators? This brings up point 2: we have seen this happen a lot Under Obama the stock market has grew because the federal government pumped $85 billion a month in it when the top 10% own 90% of stocks.  Remember who helped the big banks get bigger during the recession?  The federal government.  The federal government has stepped out of bounds on their limitations.  Warren wants to set up a system where the federal government has more power to regulate when that is what caused the problem to begin with, the federal government had power to regulate.  They changed the regulations in their favor.  This is why we were supposed to have state rights and a limited federal government. All of the problems Warren is mentioning wouldn't be happening if the federal government didn't have power to get involved in Wall Street or the market to begin with.  Put it in this analogy, let us say a person, the government started a fire, and Wall Street and the big banks are the fire fighters.  She is blaming the fire fighters, Wall street and the banks, for not putting out the fire when she should blame the government for starting it to begin with.  And what is with the genetic fallacy of Atlas Shrugged?  I guess I can play this as well.  How long does your welfare check last you?  2 weeks?  I can play childish games as well.
    1
  4. Ylze Tyr The fire analogy makes great sense.  The politicians started the fire and then those same politicians complain when Wall Street and the banks just let it burn.  The federal government created the problem.  The banks didn't create the fire, the government did.    We can use this analogy.  Wall Street and the banks bought power from the federal government they shouldn't have had to begin with. It is like going to a store and buying alcohol, if the store doesn't have alcohol than it can't be bought.  If the federal government didn't have power then it can't be bought.  Wall Street and the banks are powerless until they have the aid of the federal government if the federal government has unchecked power. We have a system where we can have checks and power of governments and we can have government that works for us.  We just have to use it.  The federal government should be limited to dealing with foreign affairs, enforcing the constitution on the states, and dealing with commerce between states.  The federal government isn't there to deal with domestic policies, or regulating wall street, or other financial regulations.  If we leave the government to that than these big banks and wall street won't be taking advantage of US tax dollars, and changing the regulations in their favor. The states and local governments were supposed to take care of domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the federal government.  The state and local governments are the one who should be responsible for regulations on the market, not the fed.  Your problem is that you feel that the federal government should provide X, Y, and Z which could help society.  Programs like the EPA, or roads (both which take up a minute part of the budget) could be good for the people, but now the federal government has the power to do A, B, and C which  benefit the politicians and the people they are connected too but not society.  You are in support of that system.  You, like Warren complain with the system gets taken advantage of, but it is the exact same system you set up.  It is like walking through a dangerous neighborhood at night and getting mugged.  Are the muggers to blame?  Yes, but it would have never happen if you weren't walking there alone at night. 
    1
  5. Ylze Tyr The government started the fire because it had the ability to.  If it didn't have that ability than it wouldn't start the fire.  We had a system that regulated the federal government, all we have to do is follow, not create more federal government programs on top of ones we already have. What would stop the mugging?  Not going to the wrong place at the wrong time.  I guess we can have more cops, we can place cops on every corner.  We can place cameras in everyone's home and spy on them and we will all be safe.  Do you want that?  I mean, you will be safe and more government. Stuff like the EPA or the department of Ed. is listed as other on the budget.  Military is a major part of the budget, and really that is all the federal government is limited to spend on, but us as a country ignore the constitution for "safety".  I but you would love a larger budget if we did place cops on every corner and enforced a curfew and random home checks.   
    1
  6. Ylze Tyr A typo, I fixed it. 
    1
  7. Ylze Tyr No, a typo, more like I typed it fast and didn't re-read what I wrote.  Pathetic on your part. Banks didn't break any laws if the federal government don't enforce it.  Why would the federal government do something that is against their advantage if they are allowed to do it? 
    1
  8. BramSLI1"Common sense" is not a valid argument.  You complain about money in politics but that wouldn't be a problem if politicians didn't have power that can be bough to begin with.  You have been listening to your 9 year old too much.  Banks won't be giving politicians anything to eat if politicians had nothing to give back in return.   
    1
  9. BramSLI1 I don't support Wolf-PAC because it doesn't attack the root of the problem.  Money in politics wouldn't be a problem if federal politicians didn't have power to begin with.  I am concerned with those who started the problem. 
    1
  10. BramSLI1 You clearly don't read anything I write.  I want government, I just want a system where we have checks and balances and control over it which is why I support state rights.  We don't need the federal government to do the stuff it does. 
    1
  11. Ylze Tyr We are not following the system of checks and balances. The country was designed to where the federal government were to deal with foreign affairs, enforce the constitution on the states, and deal with commerce between states.  The states were to deal with domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the federal government.  That is state rights, their right to deal with domestic policies as they please within the limitations of the constitution.  No one entity were to grow in power and gain too much.   Having no government is just as bad as having too much government.  Right now people like you and Warren want too much government.  You feel that a centralized powerful government is the way to go without realizing the dangers of it.  As I said, a over powerful federal government is what caused this problem to begin with, creating more government isn't going to solve it.  That is like giving a wife beating alcoholic more alcohol in hopes they stop becoming an abusive drunk.   Here government caused the problem and Warren's solution is to create more.  Not a very intelligent solution.
    1
  12. Ylze Tyr I want government that gives people the strongest representation possible.  I just mentioned the role of the federal government and it is limited.  We don't want the federal government micromanaging domestic policies. Consider this, how many members of congress can you vote for? How many SC justices?  How much say do you have in who runs the FBI? Now at the local level, how many judges can you vote for? You can vote for the sheriff, you can vote for all you city council.  You have a greater chance of meeting them.  I met both of the candidates for mayor here at the recent election and it wasn't a "professional" meeting but just was one that happen because we live in the same city.  The 2012 election I personally knew both candidates for sheriff.  Your voice is stronger at the local level, that is why there should be more power given to the states and local governments.  There are limitations as well put in place by the constitution that the fed. enforces, and there is limitations on the fed. enforced by the state.  It was the checks and balance of powers.  We have a government that is controlled and represents the people, not those with money.  
    1
  13. Ylze Tyr I gave them to you, you are just not reading it.  I gave you the responsibilities of each level of government.  States have the right to deal with domestic policies with limitations placed by the constitution.  Do you even know how to read? 
    1
  14. BramSLI1 My idea removes that incentive.  As I said, if the federal government has those limitations than it can't be bought.  You can't imagine my system because you clearly have become too dependent on the federal government. You support a federal government that offers you X, Y and Z, but when it does A, B and C, because it has not limitations on it, and you don't like it, than you complain instead of realizing it was the system that is at fault, not money or politicians.  
    1
  15. Ylze Tyr I was specific.  States would be the one creating market regulations, not the federal government. States would be the one creating taxes, business regulations and other fiscal policies, not the federal government.  As I said, domestic policies.  They can micromanage domestic policies.   
    1
  16. BramSLI1 FDR led us for the first time in this country a slow recovery from a recession.  It also started this whole problem of a government that can be bought and corrupt.    You know, if it were lower taxes, spending and limited federal government that led to the double dip recession and slowest recovery ever you will be all over it, but it wasn't so you choose to leave out info of FDR presidency. 
    1
  17. Ylze Tyr Bram isn't say that, what he is imagining is a dream where the government controls themselves.  As in more government will all of a sudden police itself.  No, we need to place limitations on it and create a government we are able to control.  You can control local governments easier which is why I want them to have more power and the power of the federal government to be limited.  We should be controlling the government, not the government.  
    1
  18. Ylze Tyr Everything that Warren supports can be done at the local level where we have stronger representation.  Is that specific enough? 
    1
  19. Ylze Tyr It isn’t broad response, it is the fact that states and local governments should be taking care of domestic policies. I can’t get down into details because each state and local government has different issues to deal with.  The federal government shouldn’t be micromanaging domestic policies, especially economic ones.  One can write a book going through state by state in what each one should do because each state is different.  My home state has low taxes and we are seeing job growth and had a major company move in which is creating more jobs that pay well (starting at $25/hr), the federal government shouldn’t create a policy that chases that company away.  Each state has different situations to deal with and should be left to deal with them. Take the min. wage for example.  Now I told you my position on how there isn’t a good argument to have one, push that aside for now.  You showed me once the “living wage” calculator.  If you look at that it is different in every area of the states and local areas.  If there were to even be a min. wage it should be set by the states and local governments.  Because $10/hr is a lot of money in some rural Midwestern area where rent is low, taxes are low, overall cost of living is low and so on.  Where $10/hr is nothing if you tried living by yourself in San Francisco.  Creating a federal min. wage disproportionally hurts smaller, more rural areas which is one reason why republicans, who gain a lot of votes from rural areas, are against it but democrats, who gain a lot of votes from cities, support it.  I have seen small businesses in small towns die due to an expensive federal regulation that wasn’t necessary in that town or state.  Why should the federal government create policies that hurt certain states, cities and towns?  I bet you don’t like it when Mitch McConnell pushes his policies, but guess what, his state voted for him to help out his state, not yours. I despise Warren.   She is too radical to be a federal politician and isn’t too bright.  That doesn’t matter because I can’t vote for her.  She isn’t the voice of me, she is the voice of her people that voted for her.  If they want what she supports than her states should implement it in their state and not force it down other people’s throats.  I didn’t vote for her, so why should she determine domestic policies in my home state.  It is funny how you criticize me for  being broad when you support the federal government enforcing broad economic policies in a complex economy. 
    1
  20. Ylze Tyr Sorry for the typos, when one is in a hurry to get to work one tends to type fast.   
    1
  21. Ylze Tyr What if a small town doesn't need a min. wage? What if their cost of living is so low and businesses pay well enough, or people manage their money well enough a min. wage isn't needed?  Why be a fascist and force your agenda down their throats?  Those individuals are happy as is.  Here is your problem, you are on the outside looking in on certain situations that you feel that certain people are "oppressed" or "in a bad situation" when really all they want is to mind their own business.  You, like Warren, want to force what you think is right on them.  That is the type of federal government you want.  But when other people do it, force what they think is right on your, you complain and bitch and moan.  Well, what goes around comes around.  I am supporting a system where you can create policies that you want and not force it on others, just like others won't be forcing their policy on you The other problem with you is that you can't imagine a life without the federal government because you are so dependent on it.  You love when the government offers you X, Y and Z, but complain when they do A, B and C.  Well, that is the system you wanted.  You wanted to be dependent on the government.  You wanted less freedom and wanted to give the government more freedom and this is the result.  You wanted it and you got it.  I like how you called me sexist, the mayor I recently voted for, and who won by the way, was a woman.  I gave specifics, you are too ignorant to see them because as I said, you want the federal government to have more freedom to make you dependent on them.  Meanwhile you gave them more freedom to do what they want.  Warren wants more freedom to put more "police" on wall street and then future politicians will have more freedom to have the police enforce what they want. Not really a novel solution.   
    1
  22. Ylze Tyr I told you that you can't get into specifics because each state deals with different issues.  That is why we have to allow the states to micromanage domestic policies including economic policies.  I guess if you want me to get specific than the federal government should not get involved in domestic policies, it should be left up to the states.  Any government involvement in the market and the economy should be done at the state level, but I stated that already.   As a whole I did get specifics, the states will deal with domestic policies.  How much more specific do you want me to get?  We can go state by state and look at their issues but that would be tedious.  But saying the states should take care of all domestic policies is really specifics.  That would help grow the economy because the economy being as complex as it is would be better if the states micromanage it at the local level. " if a town didn't need a min wage increase? good, they they won't even be affected by a federal increase. again, pretty simple logic that you seem unable to grasp." Uh no, they would be because as the law is written that town will have to follow the federal min. wage which could hurt their local economy due to lack of resources.  That is the point, not every town needs a min. wage or a high one if there is to be one at all. 
    1
  23. Ylze Tyr I am being specific, domestic policies should be left up to the states.  You ask me what policies and I said domestic policies, that is specific.  You clearly lack the intelligence to understand that.  Your idea on the min. wage is again flawed.  Not every area needs it, just like not every area needs high or low taxes, or strict business regulations, so they shouldn't be forced to take them on.    I don't like how Warren is wanting to force domestic policy down people's throat at the federal level.  The federal government has no business creating wall street regulations or any business regulations.  The federal government has no business creating a min. wage, or changing business taxes.  The federal government has no business getting involved in environmental regulations, those are issues that should be left up to the states.  Warren is pushing to expand the role of the federal government which shouldn't be done.  I didn't vote for Warren, she isn't the voice of me. I don't want her policies shoved down my throat.  That is why the federal government is limited to foreign policy, enforcing the constitution on the states, and dealing with commerce between states.  States will deal with domestic policy and enforcing the constitution on the fed.  Regulations on wall street, which Warren is talking about here, is a domestic issue and thus a state issue.  If you can't understand that it is clear why you have become so dependent on the federal government and lack intelligence to be free of dependency of the federal government.
    1
  24. Ylze Tyr I was specific, they are domestic policies, all domestic policies should be dealt with at the state level.  Sorry you can't understand that. I broke it down for you, now you just playing games or really are stupid.  I also told you want I disagree with on Warren, allowing the federal government to deal with more domestic issues. Here you go again just saying that I lose feeling like you won.  Well sorry you don't understand due to your lack of intelligence.  Here, I will break down again, the federal government should only deal with foreign policy, enforcing the constitution on the states, and dealing with commerce between states.  The states and local government should deal with all domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the federal government.  Regulations no wall street is a domestic policy thus it should be left up to the states.  The min. wage is a domestic policy and should be left up to the states.  Taxes on businesses and individuals are domestic policies and should be left up to the states.  Any welfare programs, education, money on research and so on are domestic policies and should be left up to the states.  The reason for this is because as country as large and complex as the US, and knowing how complex our society and economy it, the states and local government should take care in micromanaging domestic policies.  Not only is it more effective but it gives people the strongest representation in government out there.  As I said before, I don't want Warren's policies and if I did I will push for it with my local representatives. But I didn't vote for Warren so why should she force me to go with a certain domestic policy? Just like I am sure you don't like Rand Paul, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and other republicans on congress.  Well, it doesn't matter because you can't vote for the vast majority of them. That is specific.  At this point either you lack reading comprehension, don't know what specific means, or, and I don't want to stoop down to your level but I will, you were just defeated and are now being a troll.   
    1
  25. Ylze Tyr Saying all of them is being specific because the states should be dealing with all domestic policies.  Not this policy A or policy B but all of them.  That is as specific as I can get, beyond that I am giving examples.  I know that not all domestic policies involve the economy.  But economic policies that are domestic policies should be left up to the states.  I have named policies so you lied there.  I have named the min. wage, business regulations, regulations on wall street, taxes, but I guess you can't read.  I feel bad for that, reading comprehension is a very important skill and I wouldn't be in graduate school if I couldn't do it.  It is no wonder you fall so easily for Warren and her smoke screen talking points.  
    1
  26. Ylze Tyr I did name some specifics, you just lack reading comprehension just like you lack the ability to know what is a credible source or not.  
    1
  27. zarplex2003 Law professor eh?  So she is great at talking and writing well like most lawyers do.  She is great at being charismatic and convincing to win like a lawyer would a court case.  And how do you know I have done nothing compared to the caliber Warren has done?  A law professor isn't something to be impressive about.  Memorizing law isn't that important compare to other careers where you have to be creative and problem solve.  For the record, I am pursuing a PhD in Physical Chemistry. 
    1
  28. zarplex2003 Here is what it takes to get a PhD, you stand in front of 5 professors and you have to make 3 happy.  You could actually get by with zero publications. Now it is hard but it can be done.  Also, she studied bankruptcy law, doesn't mean she understands economics, it means she understand law.  And like I said about lawyers, they have a way to working with the law to their advantage. Dig a little deeper in Warren.  She married a Harvard law professor, that will aid you in getting a job as a professor.  Several spouses of college professor teach remedial courses at college.  She is no different.  You can teach as a university with only a masters, or just a JD which is most likely what she has and which is different than PhD.  With a JD you don't have to defend, you just complete a program much like a MD or a PharmD. That is why they don't use the title "doctor" (except for the MD). She is a now a politician.  That suits her skills well of speaking and being charismatic to buy votes.  You don't have to be knowledgeable to be a politician, you just have to convince people to vote for you.  She has done that.  In all of that she has shown little experience in the market and the economy.  She has shown a lot of experience in politicians and the law.  She is great at getting the ignorant to vote for her and she is winning that way.  I also like how you criticize my writing skills.  This is a youtube comment that I spend like a minute on, not my dissertation which is I am essentially spending 3 years on.
    1
  29. zarplex2003 You can understand driving laws without ever driving.  You can understand murder laws without studying criminology or psychology.  You will be studying laws and courts cases.  You can understand bankruptcy laws without understanding economics because you are studying law and court cases, not economic theory.  I have been in college for almost a decade, 5 years undergrad for two degrees and now almost 5 years grad.  I have seen a lot in my time and I have seen people get jobs as instructors simply because of who their spouses were.
    1
  30. zarplex2003 Actually you don't need to know about economics to study bankruptcy law, all you need to know about is law.  That is it.  Also, Warrant doesn't have a PhD in bankruptcy law, she most like has a JD which is why she doesn't have the title of "Doctor". I have tons of real world experience as well. We can get into a pissing contest if you want.  I do have published work in a peer review journal and am on my way towards a PhD. On top of that I do have another hobby which I am quite successful in and I simply won't tell you because I don't wan to reveal too much about me, but it does involve athletics. I have worked several jobs in public education, the private sector for a small business, a major corporation at a warehouse, for the university, two in fact, and have done a lot of volunteer work.  I have been out there and have interacted with actual people.  I will tell you first hand Warren doesn't represent any of them.  If she were to run for president I would promise you she will get destroyed.  That is my number one problem with her, besides her complete ignorance on economics (she is the same woman who supports a $22/hr min.wage based on ????) she wants to force her government down other people's throat who never even voted for her. She needs to really stop doing that.    
    1
  31. zarplex2003 Warren doesn't have a PhD, at least by every indication I read. You can be a professor with a JD or a MD or a PharmD.  There are professors teaching grad. level courses with a PharmD in pharmacy school.  And user blocked?  Nice maturity.  Clearly you lack education. 
    1
  32. jmitterii2 FDR did mostly what Hoover supported. The economy works in cycles, it always has. Under FDR we saw the slowest recovery from a recession ever. The 40 hour work week just prevents people who want to work more from doing so. Unemployment insurance on the federal level hurts the economy along with SS. Those programs hurt the poor and disadvantage. You know who usually works more than 40 hours a week? Those who are rich. They also do do taxes with a W2, they get a 1099 for example and get numerous write offs (as myself for example). The financial system you and FDR supported hurts the poor.
    1