Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Hillary Clinton Has A Principled Challenger" video.

***** Bernie is too radical to win and just speaks talking point. An example is when he was challenged on why Vermont couldn't get single payer and he danced around the question in saying "we are the only country without it, we need it". It didn't answer the question but was just him spewing a talking point. It works great in rallies, he will get burned in debates.
1
Booster Gold He didn't though, he said there were several reasons but never said what. He then went into political mode and said what he knows his voters will hear. It is no different when he had a discussion about the min. wage. He goes to walmart and attacks the Walton family. When the conversation gets deeper into economics he steers the conversation to that spewing too many talking points. It works great for ignorant people and the people of vermont, but won't work at the national level as in those voters are not that stupid.
1
Booster Gold He cites very deceptive examples on the min. wage without going into detail and when that does happen he gets put in his place. Take Costco. You can't compare it to Walmart because they are 2 separate businesses. Costco is a warehouse that is open only during peak hours that sells things in bulk. It's business model moves more product per hour. Walmart is a one stop shop open 24 hours of cheap goods. It caters to customers that way. I never go to Costco because it doesn't serve me as a consumer. That is why Walmart exist. Saying Costco pays more than walmart is like saying Google pays more than Costco, why doesn't Costco pay as much as Google? He was challenged on walmart before. One person mentioned how many jobs walmart created. He basically had no response. Yes Costco pays more but hires a fraction of the workers. There are never complaints about how little Costco hires, only wages. The issue with Sanders is that he wants to expand the role of the federal government. While some of his ideas may be good what is going to stop future politicians from abusing the new power. Herman Cain was asked in his 9 9 9 tax plan deal what is going to stop a future president from raising a now new federal tax. He had no answer. Sanders has no answer, just talking points and as I said it won't get him far.
1
Booster Gold Costco and Walmart are two completely different businesses with two completely different business models. I outlined how that is so. Also, he brings up major corporations without bringing up small businesses. That is always quite convenient for him. It isn't Walmart's fault that their employees are poor. All Walmart does is offer them a job at competitive wages for a retail position (Costco is not retail, it is warehouse). What Sanders never mentions is how Walmart offer cheap goods and services so those on those types of programs can afford more goods and services. Costco hires less because that is their business model. Walmart caters a lot to the customer with cheap goods and services offered at 24 hours a day at convenient locations. Costco sells in bulk at specific locations only during peak hours and you need a membership to enter. Once again, two completely different business models. It is like saying Joe Torre can win a superbowl because he won the world series multiple times. They are two completely different sports. You can't compare Costco to Walmart and as I said, when the debate goes in to depth with Sanders these issues are brought up and all he does is rip on the Walton family for no particular reason. This is why he won't last in the presidential debates. Investing in infrastructure is a perfect Sanders answer. Now what type? He never says. Education? We have been increasing spending in education for years and spend more than most countries in the world already. Regulating Wallstreet? What is going to stop future politicians form abusing such powers to "regulate wallstreet" in their favor? We have been through this before with FDR. He expanded the power of the federal government and now future politicians abuse it. We are already the world leader in science and technology. Single payer will never work at the federal level in this country, it can't even be establish in a state the size of Vermont. Sanders also never explains how to do it, he just says it has to be done. I want him to win the primaries, I need a good laugh at next year's debates.
1
Seth Evans Slave wages? Slaves were forced to work. Walmart can always close down some of their stores and cut jobs. If they are such worthless jobs then how do they exist? They exist because the market demands them. It isn't Walmart's fault their employees refuse to better themselves. " basic equality that human dignity entitles them to" What is that? You are acting like Sanders and making a broad statement that means nothing. Am I entitled to a car? A home or just an apartment? What kind of food? We can take this in any direction. What is sufficient water? What is sufficient shelter? You do understand the reason why people's lives have improved through out the years is because of capitalism, not government. Take shelter for instance. Capitalism has made it so that dishwashers are more affordable and now almost every apartment offers them. The ones that don't are usually in places with rent control because there isn't an incentive to improve the apartment. I support smaller more local government, not a centralized government. Centralized government has never worked in this country and never will. We need a president that will cut back on the role of the federal government and increase state rights.
1
Rechard kk I actually backed it up very well.
1
Seth Evans If you are in a position where the only job you can get is a low paying one then you need to change something. Reading your post you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You say that people need a car, and you mention "basic food" along with other goods. How do you base your standards on such items? If you use standards based on today's society then fine. What about 20 years from now? The reason why things improved is because of capitalism. They just don't arbitrarily improved. If you say that everyone is entitled to a certain standard of living within 20 years that standard won't change. Look at rent control. In areas of rent control apartments haven't improved because there is no incentive to improve them. Things don't improve on their own, there has to be motivation an incentive.
1
Rechard kk Right now you are throwing numbers at me that don't mean anything. There will be more job growth and wealth creation if the federal government would stop hindering it.
1
Booster Gold Government has too high of taxes and regulations. It is hard to grow when the government ruins the value of the dollar. The amount of money means nothing because money retains value but the amount of goods and services it produces. There are record profits because the top 10% pay 70% of federal taxes. That means the top 10% is doing 70% of societies work. People are not working up to their ability and government is creating road blocks on production thus growth is hindered.
1
Rechard kk We can't compare ourselves to other countries in that the variables at too great. I noticed you mentioned some states. CA is number 1 in poverty if you factor in cost of living. WV is second to last in median income but number 1 in home ownership, the number one factor of individual wealth. It is for you to cherry pick what you want but CA isn't the paradise as you think. TX has a higher GDP growth rate than CA and less poverty.
1
Rechard kk Your mention of Vermont is weak as well. Vermont has the second lowest population in the nation. It has no major university and a completely different society then every other state. It is also situation in a location that doesn't have to deal with a lot of immigrants as in what TX an CA do with hispanics. When you break down the situation your argument falls apart again. WY has low unemployment and low taxes. ND does as well and has a high quality of life. What is your point? Hawaii is ranked 8th in median household income, do you know what the cost of living is like there? So do you think Hawaii is a paradise? Homeownership rate in CA is 55%, it is 63% in TX. The national average is 64%. When you look at other factors of the economy and determining wealth then you see that CA is not doing as well as you think. Back to comparing Vermont and WY. They have similar homeownership rates and similar unemployment rates. That is just to pick a couple of stats. They also have the 2 lowest populations in the nation.
1
Well Heal How am I muted? Because I have a life and can't respond every other hour?
1
Well Heal So much misinformation in your post. Take the "poorest" counties for example. It doesn't factor in cost of living. As I said, WV is 2nd to last in median household income but is number 1 in home ownership. CA is number 1 in poverty. Plus, what is a "blue" or "red" state? Louisiana has had a majority of democrat governors for example. So that is a "red" state? NJ has a republican governor, and that is a "blue" state? California has had a republican governor before the one they had now, and they are "blue"? You have a lot to learn bud.
1
Rechard kk It isn't a simplistic view. We are staying within he confines of the US. The cost of living is lower in those states. CA is number 1 in poverty. Yes it has a higher median income but cost of living is high thus less wealth. Hawaii is a great example. It is 8th in median income so by your standards it is a paradise and people can buy more things there than in WV. That isn't true though because cost of living is higher. You have a very simplistic view on the economy it is no wonder you don't understand much.
1
Rechard kk Funny you mentioned Baltimore, it has been ran on mostly liberal policies. Also "trickle down economics" is a political term, not an economic term. If you look at the 40s though 70s there were two things. One, we were on the gold standard. Another is that every other country was rebuilding and we weren't after the war thus we were ahead of the curve.
1
Well Heal Actually lower taxes and better investment are leading to a lower cost of living. Also, what is a "red" and "blue" state?
1
Rechard kk What is a "red state" and what is a "blue state"? What you label as "red" I can label as "blue" and vice versa. Also, that talking point has been debunked long ago. There is a reason only those who are bias bring it up.
1
Rechard kk You guys are writing books. I simply don't have time to respond to your ignorant comments when you want to write novels. Simply put you and Well Heal don't understand a lot. It seems that you will push your ignorance to no bounds. I can't solve that. LIke the crazy man on the street corner, there is no hope for you.
1
Rechard kk I didn't do any insults. You write a very long comment that is basically like a chapter out of a book with no paragraphs that is a pain to read. I have other things to do. At that point I realize that I am working with someone that no matter what won't change their mind, you are like the crazy man screaming on the street corner. You wend completely off topic on your post so I just moved on. We could be talking about the min. wage for example and then you will post a long comment on taxes and spending and violence etc. and drift off topic. I have better things to do then deal with very myopic people like you. If you want to claim victory then fine, just remember you are no more than a crazy guy on the street corner.
1
Well Heal Every countries are different. That is the point. We can't compare ourselves to other countries because the variables are too great. There are different histories, societies, different amounts of diversity and so on. I heard the other day someone praising Denmark. Well, Denmark has a mandatory military, we don't in the US. That plays a role but people like you leave that out. There is a level of ignorance there. Here is your other problem. You bring up Ayn Rand, what does she have to do with anything? In the US we do see states that implement lower regulations and taxes and improve. We do see states do the opposite and do fine. I have said in other comments there isn't one right way to establish government, there are several factor involved, you are too ignorant to realize that though. That is why I support state rights. You can go ahead and live in your box and feel that anyone that doesn't agree with you is an Ayn Rand worshiper (you brought her up first), but being on the extreme end like yourself is you just defeating yourself.
1
Rechard kk Why do we have low job vacancies? Because we have a federal government that is messing too much in the economy. I am not denying what you state, I am saying that you are throwing around numbers that mean nothing unless you put them into context. Yes there are not many jobs right now. Now why? Also, what is your solution? Just give money away? Arbitrarily create jobs that don't generate wealth? That will hurt the economy more. This is your problem. You look at a stat but never put it in perspective. I admit what works for me doesn't work for anyone else. That is why the founding fathers created state rights. They ran into that problems over 200 years ago and that problem exists today. Most problems people have are from their fault. Yes shit happens, have a backup plan. I have one. Mine is working at a $10/hr job back in my hometown if things fall apart for me right now. It won't be fun or easy but have a backup plan, and work hard so you don't have to be in that situation. The old saying is that excuses are like assholes, everyone has them and they all stink.
1
Well Heal The amount of jobs isn't the issue, if you want jobs we can create jobs easily. What we need to pushing for is the creation of wealth. That is what improves society. How we do that is through investment. The problem we have right now is that we have too many people who don't want to work but instead what a paycheck, basically a handout. That is creating the environment where businesses don't want to invest because then people will find a way to take advantage of them. You end up with a society where a small percent of society all the work. Why, as a business should you create more jobs when people will take advantage of you anyway?
1