Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Infowars Pulls Video After Random Woman Trolls Them To Perfection" video.

  1. Dav, 1. Again, wealth does not equal income. The Walton family own half of Walmart, as in the shares of them. Shares are not food, homes, cars, etc. Shares are essentially portions of a company. But let us keep it simple to give an understanding of wealth. Say I were to give Joe, a savvy business owner a business, and Bob, a person with little business skills the exact same business and wait it out for a few years what will happen? Joe would have a much higher net worth as he has business skills and would develop his business up to be worth more. Bob would not. In fact, chances are Bob will regress in wealth. Why? Because Bob has little business skills. So what am I getting at with this? You place a business in the right hands it increases in wealth. In the wrong hands it decreases in wealth. You support wealth redistribution. So that means you support giving up portions of Walmart to many Bobs in the world. The Walton family is Joe and you want to take parts of that business from Joe and give it to Bob. What is going to happen? That part of the business Bob runs will decrease in wealth. As for the food situation I suggest you read down the comments. The truth is that due to a tornado there were power outages and the food became spoiled. 2. The military is more than just "bombing countries". Besides that, the point on helping PTSD veterans, we lack doctors and mental care specialists to offer help to all of these veterans. That is one issue. Throwing money at a program does not magically make doctors appear. Also, if we cut social welfare programs for free loaders we would have more money for our veterans. Many on the right support that. 3. There are loopholes for the poor and middle class as well. However, I support two forms of a federal tax A: A tax on the states like we had pre 1913 B: A federal flat income tax and a consumption tax I agree the loopholes are bad, but that is what you get with a federal government with too much power. A major problem we have is that many want to tax the rich at a high rate just because they have more money. So we allowed that and eventually we created this massive tax code with loopholes. But when one pushes to simplify it and remove loopholes you end up removing loopholes for the middle and lower class. As a grad student there were uproars about how our tuition waiver was going to be taxed. I was the only one I knew that supported it as I knew it would simplify the code. My thought process was simple, if you are going to allow that loophole to exist then you open the doorway for loopholes for the rich. It goes both ways. A maximum wage is an extremely dumb idea. People would just be paid with assets at that point. " What do you say to the 45,000 people who die every year for lack of healthcare coverage" Very misleading number. One, that is 0.01% of the population. We have around 30,000 deaths due to traffic accidents a year. We have around 40,000 new cases of HIV infections a year. Where is the government driving that number down to zero? Two, in other countries people die. Three, that number is not accurate. Poor health is associated with poverty to begin with. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking with the poor, all self inflicted. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of healthcare or due to poor health to begin with? "If you are so sure the government is doing it's job and representing us and our interests, and that the status quo is fine: " From there you list some problems. Resources are limited. Government does not have a magic wand to fix everything. I mean, why hasn't government funding in research find a cure for HIV? Why hasn't NASA research colonize Mars yet? Why hasn't the NIH funding create teleportation? I feel that government can do much better in serving us, and I have my opinions on that. But you are pushing for impossibilities at this point.
    11
  2. He is opposed to people being rich, except for himself. He complains about the Koch Brothers and the Walton family way too much even though they have produced way more than he ever has.
    10
  3. Listen to Bernie's arguments. They are basically "there are poor people, and the Koch brothers have too much money, take from them." He is considered a joke for a reason.
    10
  4. "One question is, why aren't they spending their money? Why aren't they spending money to help keep Veterans with PTSD off the street and getting the help they need? Or, even more relevantly, why aren't they paying their fair share in taxes? " To answer each question 1. They do not have as much money as you think 2. Throwing money at a program does not produce anything if there isn't anyone willing to work. You need production, not spending 3. Define "fair share". The top 10% earned 40% of the income but pay 70% of federal income taxes
    5
  5. Dav, pointing to wealth inequality is very misleading. Wealth inequality is not bad as it shows there is more wealth to begin with. The reason why we see it growing is because of major companies like Walmart, for example, is seeing their value increase. The Walton family owns half of the shares of Walmart, that is where their value is derived. They do not own a large portion of the homes, or food, or natural resources. They own a large portion of the shares of a company. You displayed a level of economic illiteracy when you equate wealth to income. Wealth does not equal income. You cannot jump from one term to another as if they are the same, they aren't. Take Jeff Bezos for example. He is at the top in wealth by earns only $80,000 a year. Why is he so wealthy? Because he is the largest shareholder of Amazon. Now you also have to consider why these companies are becoming so valuable. It is because they are employing more people and moving more goods. There were 24 Walmart stores in the 60s, now there are around 4000. Think of how many employees they employ and how much productivity they have. This is why people consider Bernie and his fans a joke. They do not understand basic economic concepts like wealth and income and feel like certain people have too much and thus want to take from them.
    4
  6. I want free healthcare. I also want a free car, free rent, free food, free clothes, free lap dances, free blow jobs.........
    4
  7. Dav, obesity and type II diabetes are self inflicted for the most part. Yes, there are genetic situations, but for the most part they come from diet. This unhealthy food comes because it produces more food at a lower price. The argument is that without that food prices would be higher and poor people would starve. I also support reducing to even removing the FDA on the basis of limited federal government. The Middle East was a mess to begin with. There is a moral argument and we have social welfare programs to help people. I support them as long as they are localized. I support local social welfare programs. The problem with Bernie Sanders and his fans is they make these asinine of "the Waltons are rich thus we need to take their money to give free stuff to poor people". It isn't that easy. Or say "every other major country on earth has healthcare as a right". Ok, and....? That is a very shallow argument. These issues are more complex than that. There is value in having government programs provide for people, but we have to realize facts here and limitations we have. Calling for federal universal healthcare is extreme. You are calling for a complete transformation of our healthcare system which is 1/6 of a nearly $20 trillion economy in a nation of 320+ million people. That is impossible to do without causing a major recession. The housing market is around 5% of our economy, look what that caused. Also, nothing indicates that universal healthcare is even better. I want what is best for society, but you have to be rational here. Bernie is far from that.
    3
  8. Many congress members, especially republicans, sleep in a cot in their DC office. Why can't Bernie? Or why can't Bernie give up his summer home in Vermont and donate the money? He is greedy that refuses to pay is "fair share".
    3
  9. Lauri, Bernie is like Michael Moore. They pretend to be a middle class citizen when they are rich and got there fooling idiots.
    3
  10. Ok, one, who is Kurt? Next, you are correct. People like Kyle here are a major reason why the left is losing. It isn't so much that they get facts wrong. Both sides do. But it is that the ultra left like Kyle preaches about how we should fact check but never get out of their own bubble where fact checking would make them look like fools.
    2
  11. Bernie praised Venezuela in the past, that is documented. Just like he praised Fidel Castro. It is a legit argument.
    2
  12. http://www.libertynewsdaily.com/blog-929-flashback:-bernie-sanders-praised-socialist-venezuela-as-model-for-ending-income-inequality It is from his own website https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-gaps-disparities-that-threaten-america
    2
  13. You are also ignoring him praising Fidel Castro.
    2
  14. sprybug, it is on his website, that means he allowed it to be there. That means he supports it. Also he did praise Castro, there is video evidence of it. Sorry, but Bernie is a nut.
    2
  15. Chrono, look at his objections towards the new tax bill. He hates the fact that the rich get any cut at all.
    2
  16. silvertarot25, programs like schools, parks, police, etc. are all funded and ran locally. Also, they are nowhere nearly as complex as healthcare. Even at that we still lack resources. 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. Many schools have volunteer workers, especially in special ed. Look at parks in cities, many are filled with vandalism and litter. You also mention in an earlier comment ""Oh no our gov't could never afford it!" Meanwhile the gov't voted to increase military funding an EXTRA $80 billion a yr. Imagine how many ppl could be helped w/ $80 billion" Healthcare is 1/6 of our economy, defense is less than 4% of our economy. Cutting defense down to zero would not put a dent in healthcare payments.
    1
  17. comingviking, in all reality you do not have a right to roads and water. Local communities voted to have government run those programs. In many areas water is private and roads are private. In many areas private citizens take care of the roads as in plow it when it snows for example.
    1
  18. "Free stuff advocates only care about goodies for the poor, without advocating for any responsibility too." 100% true. The poor have higher rates of obesity and type II diabetes, both self inflicted. Bill Maher one time said to a universal healthcare advocate that "we eat shit" in the US. That people do not eat healthy and that is the bigger problem.
    1
  19. sprybug, Bernie praised Venezuela and praised Fidel Castro. That is the truth. So a guy who is working on a PhD and an MBA now is an "idiot".
    1
  20. Kyle has a hard on for Bernie.
    1
  21. swiftset, K-12 education is not a right. Also, the federal government only funds 8% of K-12 education. 84% of it is state and local (the rest is private). So to make an argument for "basic healthcare" by pointing to K-12 education is very flawed. A solid argument against education is that it can be a form of indoctrination. One reason why it is localized is so that can be avoided. If one state wants to push for that people can move to a state that actually educates the kids. You also say "basic healthcare". In comparison to education there are many districts that do not offer AP and honor courses. Students are not offered advanced courses like physics. They, arguably, receive "basic education" in basic algebra, writing, etc. So with healthcare "basic healthcare" could be like the DMV. Going to a health clinic office, waiting for a long time for a twisted ankle, a major ongoing headache, or whatever you have. After that you see an overworked physician who does not care much about you, especially personally, and they give you some basic medication that might work. Is that really the quality you want? I guess it beats nothing. Problem is that many here want universal healthcare to pay for major heart surgery and other advanced care. That is not "basic". Finally, like education healthcare is very dependent on you. One major issue we have in this nation is the fact that people eat shit, as Bill Maher said to Michael Moore. People need to take care of themselves. As with education, people need to try to educate themselves. You can give the kid homework. If they don't do it what is the point? With healthcare, if people refuse to do their part to remain healthy what is the point?
    1
  22. rubberduckiedogs, police and firefighters are locally funded and ran. Around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer. How many doctors are going to volunteer? Police and firefighters are a drop in the bucket in terms of cost compared to healthcare. Healthcare is a completely different situation than those two. Police do not have to go to 10 years of post high school education to become a cop, doctors do. There is not major R&D involved in the police and fire department. There is for healthcare. Also, one argument is that police are there to protect law abiding citizens who are trying to remain responsible. Healthcare is a person's responsibility and more dependent on them. If I get mugged on the streets that is, for the most part, beyond my control. Having insurance is something I can control. There are situations on both sides where that is not the case, but for the most part that is what it is. But again, healthcare is very complex and expensive compared to police. We lack fire fighters thus we have volunteers. How many healthcare providers are going to volunteer? The comparison of healthcare to police and firefighters is flawed.
    1
  23. "Being born on American soil should not make you a citizen at least one of your parents should be an American citizen" I agree to this. Problem is that "progressives" are not progressive at all. They fail to understand the intent of that law. There are many laws on the books that should change and that is one of them. However, if you push to change it leftists would call you a racist, or bigoted or some other smear.
    1
  24. David Davies, there is no "right" to an education. Legally states do not have to provide it. If you look at what rights are in this nation they are things the government cannot take away without due process. Also, a lot of them are used to revolt against the government in some way, or be protected against the government. With education that can be used to indoctrinate individuals. This is not to argue against education but to give you what it really is and some issues that can arise. Also, as a counter point, if no one wants to teach how do you provide education? And define "basic"? Many districts do not offer AP courses. One school in my district is so isolated they have two teachers in the entire school. Those teachers teach around 20 students ranging from K-12. Do those 20 students receive a "basic" education? "Further, you have it wrong the argument for localised education. THAT is where indoctrination comes in. If you have a national curriculum set at the federal level, you're LESS likely to receive indoctrination because it has to be a one-size-fits-all approach. " Not correct. With one standard there is nothing to counter it. With every state setting a curriculum that creates a situation were people can see what works better. If one state, say CA, does indoctrination but another state, say FL, doesn't, people can see that the people of FL are intelligent and the people of CA aren't. People can move. But at the federal level they can set one standard with nothing to contradict or test it against. " A prime example of that is the fact that a surprisingly large number of people within the US bible belt still believe that the Earth is just a few thousand years old, " A lot of people believe a lot of things that are ignorant, like you who have no ideas what rights are in this country, or their purpose. "My daughters, for a time, went to a church school. Not because we're religious in any way, but because it was a good school. On one occasion her class was given a project, with a prize given for the best one. My daughter decided to do a project on primates. The last page was about humans. So she was effectively bringing up the topic of evolution in a church school....." First, what is a "church school"? If you mean private catholic schools they all teach evolution. In fact, the debate of teaching intelligent design in science classroom does not exist in those private catholic schools. It only exist in public schools. In those private catholic schools they understand intelligent design is not science, so they do not teach it in a science classroom. I feel you story is made up. Also, look up Dover v Penn. "The problem these days with people educating themselves is that they often start with a particular world view, which then means that they are likely to pick up misinformation and treat it as fact." I agree that is a problem. But I feel it is worse to have government dictate what we learn. Using your story say government officials were to get into power and strip away evolution from the classroom and teach intelligent design instead as fact? Would you support that? I doubt it. But you created the system where the federal government has that power and nothing to counter it. You created a system where the federal government reigns down and forces their will on the people. I bet you would be fine if you had your people in office creating the curriculum, but would complain when people you disagree with are not. I complain about the government having that power. Now you may say "vote them out", but if the government keeps people dumb, how do you? "You could be the fittest person on the planet but still suffer a heart attack." That is why you buy insurance. " So, sorry to say this but your argument on healthcare is not only ignorant but arrogant." Not true. My argument is legit and made by professionals and experts. Same with universal healthcare. You are dismissing my argument like that as you have no argument. I never dismissed the argument for universal healthcare, I as showing the flaws in it and how you cannot compare it to education.
    1
  25. David Davies, as for your healthcare cost analysis, it isn't that simple. To start, universal healthcare would raise prices due to increase demand. Next, medicare and medicaid cost more per customer. At times it seems to cost less but that is due to government agencies sharing the cost. For example, insurance companies work in disease awareness, the government has the CDC for that. Or in fraud prevention, the government has the IRS for that. Next, yes the US healthcare system is expensive. But we have the highest quality and best R&D in the world. Also, the expensive cost comes from government involvement. Adding more government and creating a monopoly in universal healthcare does not appear to be the solution. Arguably it can be on the idea of "well we have some government, we have to go all the way at this point and remove the government/private sector combination". But there are many barriers in that. In short, the US system is expensive due to the lack of a free market. "Don't you wish healthcare was a right, huh?" No.
    1
  26. The Koch Brothers donated a lot of money for medical research. The Walton family created millions of jobs and provided cheap goods and a convenience for millions of people. Bernie wants to attack those individuals because, for some arbitrary reason, he feels they have too much money.
    1
  27. EnigmicIdentity, individuals do create jobs. Those individuals read the market and invest in a way to create jobs. If the Walton family did not invest to create Walmart those jobs would not exist. Those people do not provide healthcare for one simple reason, they can't afford it.
    1
  28. "You seem oblivious to the fact that retail jobs existed before Walmart, " Sure, there would be another retail store. It just won't be Walmart, it would be some other major company. What's your point? "Walmart's $10 billion profit divided among its 2 million employees gives it the ability to pay $420/month for employee healthcare, " Isn't that simple. Walmart has razor thin profits because a lot of their profits go into their 2.9 billion shares outstanding. Corporations have to worry about the value of stocks. If they didn't they would lose shareholders and have to downsize leading to job loss. You complain about Walmart but why are not you complaining about Raley's or Hy Vee how little they pay? Or Costco in how few employees they hire?
    1
  29. Daniel Jones, it would cause a major recession. You are destroying millions of jobs in the insurance industry to start. You have people who are in a position where they cannot train for a new job thus they are screwed. A lot of stock options are tied to healthcare which would cause their values to drop due to uncertainty. Millions of people are paid with insurance who will be receiving less payment. To fund the system you would have to raise taxes which would mean spending habits would change for both businesses and consumers. All of that, plus more would create large economic uncertainty to where investors would not invest causing a major recession. "Also, there is a tremendous amount of data that shows universal healthcare works out really well and does so at a significant cost reduction compared to what we have in the US." That is completely false unless you are talking about highly deceptive data. There is an entire book out by two professors (that I would link in another comment) showing that universal healthcare is not better. Not saying it is terrible, just saying it is not better. " I took a healthcare economics class and it's nearly beyond any dispute at this point in the conversation." Really? Then why did two professors spend their time writing a book on the topic? I question if you actually took a course like that.
    1
  30. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf There is the book. They cite all of their sources and methods for you to read.
    1
  31. Daniel Jones, if you took a healthcare economics course than you would know this issue is highly debatable.
    1
  32. Kebo Boke, low unemployment is not really a great goal. We can have very low unemployment if we outlaw the tractor, is that a good goal? Creating jobs is easy, creating wealth isn't. Just putting people to work is not a solution. You need to push for wealth creation.
    1
  33. FDR made our economic situation worse. He only cared about expanding his power.
    1
  34. Because they are not socialist countries. They have lower corporate tax rates and a free market in wage negotiation. They have programs ran by the governments but they are very business friendly.
    1
  35. "The aussie patriot you do realize that we could literally fund universal healthcare and universal education right now by taking the money from our ridiculously large military budget. " Healthcare is 1/6 of our GDP. Defense is less than 4% of our GDP. I think you failed math in school.
    1
  36. Dav, not to be rude but I find it ironic how you talk about "false statistics" but fail to understand the difference between wealth and income.
    1
  37. Subarc, I do agree that insurance companies are a problem, but that is due to government involvement. Consider this, why are so many people dependent on their employers for insurance? And why does insurance equal healthcare? It is because insurance is a form of payment and that is because insurance is a tax free way to pay employees. If you remove the employer based insurance situation people would be pay higher wages and consumers would buy insurance policies they need forcing companies to compete which lowers prices. Many forms of healthcare services require no insurance and can be paid for out of pocket which also lowers prices. You, like most on the left, are complaining about insurance companies without thinking why they are a problem to begin with. And you solution is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and go to a straight government program which is a monopoly in many ways. "Single payer is proven to be cheaper than a healthcare for profit system." Not true at all.
    1
  38. " it is true that single payer is cheaper. There have been numerous studies showing that by going to a single payer system we would save about 5 trillion dollars over 10 years. " No legit study exists. I have seen the "studies" and they are all over the place. They do not use consistent data analysis. "A lot of that savings comes from bloated administrative waste, advertising, and or course the profit margin, etc" Advertising is a drop in the bucket. I agree profits are a problem with how big they are, but a free market would cure that. Profit margins for businesses in the free market are very thin, as in less than 10%. Administration cost is highly misleading as government as the ability to transfer the cost to other agencies, like the CDC for example. Some overhead cost in insurance goes into disease awareness where the government has the CDC for that. Include that cost with healthcare in the government and cost go up. ". I would just encourage you to look up the numbers on single payer compared to our current system from a non biased source. " I have seen many sources on it. To start, what is "non-bias"? Next, do you factor in quality? Finally, healthcare is very complex. To just say "single payer is cheaper" is ignoring a plethora of variables. Consider this, doctors spend many years in school and residency for a reason. Even in other countries healthcare is 10% of GDP. Compare that to education where it is around 5%. Healthcare is that complex.
    1
  39. Subarc, I have done my homework. The federal government labels that cost as something else besides healthcare. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/#10418405140d To add, insurance companies pay for things like fraud prevention which saves money. I encourage you to do some homework.
    1
  40. Subarc, when you tell me to "do some homework" where do you want me to look? Here is a good book I read about healthcare https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  41. I love how leftists throw numbers out there and have no clue what they even mean.
    1
  42. Dav, I never made a claim about Sweden and rape. However, what you are saying about wealth and income is not true. You looked at wealth inequality and then claimed that rich people have a lot of money. Wealth does not equal income. "Your stastistic about military being 4 percent of GDP, while roughly accurate, is incredibly misleading. The total discretionary spending on the military in 2015 was around 54 percent, and Trump has seriously upped it since then. " Defense spending is around 16% of federal spending. " Maybe the healthcare GDP statistic you mentioned is 1/6 because costs are beyond absurdly, obscenely high due to a serious lack of proper regulations on the cost of drugs etc." In other countries it is around 10%. So even is we follow their model and supposedly get spending down to their level (it isn't that easy but we will use this assumption) that 10% of GDP is still higher than 4% of GDP. ". Wealth/income inequality are effectively the same topic " No they aren't as they are different all together. The top 10% earned 40% of the income.
    1
  43. Dav, your defense spending numbers are misleading. You are looking at total dollars. Do you know we are also spending more on education? Should we cut that as well? In 1960 we were at 10% of GDP in defense spending. It has dropped down to less than 4%. That is what you should compare those dollars to. " But I never said that wealth equals income" You have in the thread started by thes7274473 "90% of us are (or were in 2013) in the dark grey area, while 50% are in the near non-existent darker grey area. Those 50% are probably seriously struggling to make ends meet, if not completely destitute and/or living in a car. The Koch Brothers and others are way up at the top of the light grey area. Yes, they have too much money. " That was in reference to a wealth inequality link. " if you are making a lot of money you are VERY likely to have a lot of money. If you are not making a lot of money you are very likely to be poor." It isn't that easy. You are not poor because someone else is rich. You are poor because you are poor. I earn $23,000 a year, I am not poor for various reasons. There are people earning millions. They can earn billions and my life style would not change as a whole. Complaining about rich people is just pure jealousy. "Your 16% statistic refers to mandatory spending. I was referring to discretionary spending. Any way you slice it, we spend more than the next several countries combined on the military." We also spend more on education than many of those countries combine, do you want to cut education spending as well? I heard the stat of us spending more than the next 8 countries combine. If you combine those countries GDP and defense spending their spending is around 2.5% of GDP, ours is at 3.5%. So a difference of a percent. Not so large now. We spend more then them combine because our GDP is larger than many of those countries combine. But again, by your standard we should cut education spending as well. "Healthcare costs are out-of-this-world high in America." I agree, because we lack a free market system. " It's actually a lot easier than you think to get costs down: 1. Single-payer medicare for all. 2. Proper regulation of medical costs, especially pharmaceuticals. " It ins't that easy. In reality single payer would raise prices as you are increasing demand without increasing supply. Saying "regulations" is very vague. " Don't just let the companies charge anything they want for prescription drugs. " Ok, they will just lower quality. "You believe there should be more spending on the military, which is for killing people, than on healthcare," Military does way more than kill people. It does research, humane work, help in emergency situations domestically, etc. Also, I never said once I support increasing the defense budget, I am just pointing out that cutting it down to zero would not come close to paying for healthcare.
    1
  44. Dav, we spend more on medicare and medicaid compared to defense already. Do you suggest we cut that as well?
    1
  45. " we spend 36% of the entire world's military budget ourselves and you honestly think we spend more on healthcare? " We also have around 25% of the world's GDP. Many countries have no desire to have a defense due to no threats. And yes, we do spend more on healthcare.
    1
  46. "you also don't realize that we would spend LESS for universal healthcare than we are currently spending on healthcare." 100% false. Sorry Prof. Gruber, I am not a "useful idiot". https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/#1b9e25997c05
    1
  47. CutThroatJuggalo, it makes zero economic sense to say universal healthcare would lead to lower prices. You are increasing demand without increasing prices. Anyone who feels that universal healthcare would lead to lower prices is a fool and are the same foolish people Prof. Gruber took advantage of.
    1
  48. Dav, again, you pointed me to a wealth inequality chart. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Wealth_Inequality_-_v2.png That is what you pointed me to. I am in the bottom 50% because I have negative wealth. I have student loan debt and essentially zero assets. I am fine as I earn $23,000 in income a year and live in an area where that is plenty to live off of. The average homeowner has over 60% of their wealth tied into their home. The average home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to now wealth. That does not mean they are struggling. Think of the millions of people who own a home and that's it. They are in that 50% you claim to be "seriously struggling". Everyone in my apartment complex are in that 50% and I bet you almost none of them are "seriously struggling". Why? Because they have an income level to make ends meet. They just have no wealth as they have no assets. You are making the false assumption that people with little to no wealth are poor. That is not true. In fact a good portion, like me, have negative wealth due to loans. Someone with no debt and no assets and only $10 has more wealth than 25% of the nation. Why? Because of loans. Are those people struggling to make ends meet? Maybe. But many aren't, like me as the loans are home loans or student loans. Things that are major investment. That is where you are equating wealth to income. You are saying little to no wealth means one is poor. Poverty is based on income. "As I have said, we have, above and beyond the largest military ever conceived. And we are currently invested militarily in 8, or is it 9, different countries that did NOT attack us." And? Other nations invest in us. We do so to keep a civil standing. Most conflicts are settled off of the battlefield. Anymore violent conflict are against nations that are not established or terrorist. " We shouldn't cut education even more because then people in general would be even less able to critically think. " Like falsely equating wealth and income :). That aside, my point was that we spend more on education than we do many nations combine. You said we spend more on defense than many nations combine as an argument we spend too much. I am just using your argument against you. Also, not to be rude, but I see a complete lack of critical think skills on your part. You just gave an ultra leftist talking point on defense spending. Again, of course we spend more than a lot of countries combine. Our entire GDP is larger than a lot of countries combine. That is why we also spend more on education than them. "It's bad enough that school weeks in Oklahoma have already been cut to 4 days in some places, and that school teachers aren't being paid for shit for educating the next generation of Americans. " Education is ran locally. Also, one can argue that less time out of the classroom benefits students. Education involves more than just students in a government building listening to government workers regurgitate. I support public education as I work in it. However, there is a lot to reform. Cutting down to 4 days a week can have benefits. Students can spend more time at a job, or doing activities in the community, or with families and so on. Think critically here. The 4 day a week school system is the status quo. Maybe it is time to change? Less days also means less money to spend running the school so maybe teachers get paid more? " You seem to like talking a lot about statistics, and I guess that's one way of arguing, but I have often cited real examples." I have a math minor. "65 of whom hold more wealth than the bottom half of the world's population." Again, that is deceptive. The Walton family owns so much wealth because they own half of Walmart. That means the shares of Walmart. Walmart is valued as high as it is due to the revenue it generates and number of people they employ. The wealth they own is not oil, food, cars, homes, etc. It is shares of Walmart. If you were to give their portion of Walmart to an average person that company will go broke as they would not be able to manage it lowering the wealth. Also, you have many people, like me, who have negative wealth and are fine. Not everyone has the desire to run a major corporation. In all reality a poor person in Ethiopia has more wealth than I do. They have zero wealth with no debt or assets. I have negative wealth. Now whose life is better? Mine with my high speed internet and advanced education, or the poor person in Ethiopia? This is why you citing wealth inequality is very misleading. Again, think critically here. "Tell people who are starving in Yemen or Somalia (Yemen is in large part because of the US backing of Saudi Arabia incidentally, and happens with our seal of approval), or the 500,000 homeless population in America that they are 'jealous' of the rich because they resent this injustice." Those countries are in dire need and are a completely different discussion in itself. But you have way more wealth then they do, why don't you pay higher taxes to help them out? You are near the 1% if you include them in the stats. As for homeless in the US, those are the very poor and are an issue. It is not an easy problem as a lot have severe mental problems and act violent or cannot be cured. Again, it would be great of government can just wave a magic wand and fix these things, they can't. "Putting it lightly we have the highest drug costs in the world. " We also lead the world in R&D. Also, a free market system can lower prices like it did for LASIK. "And they already have lowered the quality in some cases, " Uh, it is close to a consensus that the US has the highest quality of care. "The military's PRIMARY intended function is to kill people." Nope, the primary intent is to defend. As I said, most conflicts are settled off of the battle field. We have programs like R&D through them as well to aid in that. We help other nations with our military to maintain a strong relationship. I know many members in the military who never killed a single person. "Single payer medicare for all would SAVE money in the long run" 100% not true. Economically that makes zero sense. You are increasing demand without increasing supply. Heck, you just complained about schools having to cut spending and go to less days. By your idea schools, which are government ran, should be swimming in cash.
    1
  49. Dav, we occupy those nations to develop a relationship with them. Just like how the UN is located in the US.
    1
  50. Dav, many countries are "invading Iraq". Also, we are not invading them. We are working with their government to be there. Now do I agree with being there? No. But we are working with them to help establish them and stop terrorism. That is the idea. Is it being done well? Not really. However, talking to a co-worker from Iran they said that over the past few years the people's lives in Iraq are better now because of many things we have done.
    1