Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Ben Stein: Does Obama Hate America Because He's Black?" video.

  1. +Ylze Tyr Because I am a sports fan. I guess I can say FDR, you know, the only president to turn a recession into a depression. but Obama came close to that. I gave you evidence on all that you asked. That is when you ran away from the debate. I even gave you a definition and an example of subjective and you didn't respond. I gave you peer reviewed publications on the min. wage and job loss and you counter by giving me nothing. There comes a point where you have to admit defeat, no shame in that. I use to be an ignorant liberal like yourself. I supported the min. wage increase when I was working a low wage job. I am older and no realize my stupidity then. Really at this point I can only conclude that you are either some young kid who has no experience, or some low life loser with no job or a low wage job whose only chance to even survive is off of the hard work of others. If that is the case then fine. Just remember that is we are still in discussion years later and I am living in a nice house with land and a nice car and you continue to work a low wage job it is purely because of your refusal to get better.
    2
  2. The republicans took over congress under Obama and there are more states with republican governors. Under Obama people showed their dislike by voting against him. Pointing towards that one grandma who now has healthcare or immigrants who are not even Americans is really digging the bottom of the barrel for his success.
    1
  3. I like it when Kyle calls someone irrelevant like he has done something.
    1
  4. +Eero Haapala There is plenty of criticism of Obama. Obamacare is a mess, we have not recovered from the recent recession, there is a reason why the Republicans won congress and most of the states. Also liberals are guilty of simply calling Bush stupid with no justification. Christopher Hitchens called out Bill Maher on it.
    1
  5. +DragonTaco7 Have you heard him talk pre 9/11 and post 9/11? Before 9/11 he spoke very well, afterwards, especially deep into his presidency he was not a smooth. The stress of being president gets to you, especially after a terrorist attack. It has even gotten to Obama, he doesn't speak as well anymore.
    1
  6. +slayertakim1 Obamacare does not work. The number one problem is that it is a federal law. Another problem is that it is raising the cost of healthcare insurance where costs are going up. Sure some poor person may have healthcare insurance (which is not healthcare), but now the middle class has to flip the bill. Obamacare is ultimately going to lead to universal healthcare so enjoy having healthcare at the same quality of the USPS or VA. It doesn't take time for the economy to fully recover. It takes around 5 years and has been that way throughout history. The two times it did not were during the great depression and now. During both times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy through massive spending and taxation. All it did was increase the debt and compound our problems. The unemployment rate dropping means nothing if wealth is not being created.
    1
  7. +vuk911 1. Obamacare made our healthcare worse in this country. It is raising cost. Just because someone has healthcare insurance does not mean they have healthcare. 2. Terrible excuse. How about people that actually know what is going on go out and vote, and those that know what is going on realize how terrible Obama is. 3. You have to justify that position. I am not a Bush fan mind you, but saying he is stupid without justification is not going to fly. He kept the economy strong after 9/11 and was willing to work with democrats in congress. Obama came in and played the blame game and under him we saw a slow recovery.
    1
  8. +vuk911 That can be debated. It is easily arguable that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. For example if you were to remove murder and accidents, things not connected to healthcare, the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Other countries deal with problem of lower quality of care and longer wait times. Plus, you really can't compare the US to other countries. We have a much larger population than most of them and more diversity and all around a completely different society. In the US everything the federal government touches breaks with the exception of the military and that is because the military is constitutional, and is composed of discipline workers. It isn't a classic trick. The economy faces recessions, it is a part of the evolution of the economy. Every other time we recovered from it in around 5 years or less. Only two times we didn't. The last couple recessions before this current one were in the early 90s (we had a mini one in 2002 that didn't last long either) but was over in around a 1, and during Carter's final years, but was over in around 2-3 years. And when I say over I mean had a spike in growth to catch us up and then steady growth afterwards. Sure GDP is rising, we just never saw that spike to catch us up. For example in the late 70s we saw the same negative GDP growth as we did around 2007, but we saw a spike in GDP growth of close to 10% to catch us up. We have not saw that. We are still behind. It is like this, you are running a race and end up 2 laps behind (a recession). For full recovery you run faster to make up for those 2 labs and then keep up. We have not done that. We are still 2 laps behind. "You want the wealth to be spread more even between the people? " I want everyone to see their wealth grow. You do that with economic growth. I imagine with that comment you are the typical person who conflates wealth with income. Or you simply don't understand what wealth is. You don't "spread" wealth around. You create wealth. In fact, in a healthy economy there is going to be a wealth gap. And if you understand what wealth is you will see that.
    1
  9. +vuk911 1. What healthcare organizations? I have seen increase costs and doctors wanting to leave. We are creating a problem of too many consumers and not enough to consume. That is increasing cost or will lower quality. And terrible logical fallacy you tried at the end. 2. He did not "kill" Romney. Romney was a terrible candidate and he made it close. The incumbent always has the upper hand and Romney was in the race. And people ran away from Obama because it was their best chance to win. Obama lost both of his midterms for a reason, people that know what is going on don't like him. 3. He could speak well. During his presidency he got worse but that is due to stress, the same thing happen to Obama. He can't speak well. And Bush has a Harvard education, he can read just fine. The economy was fine under Bush. We saw a recession in 2007, but recessions happen. It didn't help that the democrats that took control of congress wanted to start bailouts. I didn't mind stopping Obama. He didn't want to work with republicans to begin with and his ideas were radical and would make the situation worse. Noticed how when the republicans took over the House and created a road block we saw some GDP growth. Still not what we need and we are still behind, but at least we are increasing the debt and stopping wealth creation all together. The economy has always dipped. Look throughout history, it happens. That isn't destroying the economy. What is is hindering it from catching up and growing at a steady rate.
    1
  10. +vuk911 Now you are being facetious. I had facts, sorry they go against your agenda. Life expectancy is strongly connect to healthcare. And what standards do you use to say that France is number 1? Saying more diversity is not being racist. You are being racist by bringing it up. When I mean more diversity the US has 5 times more people than France. It has states that are the size of countries. The US is basically 50 countries in one. Go live in one state for awhile then move to another, the difference in society is huge. That is how we are diverse. The fact that you immediately pointed towards race is showing your racism in yourself. I am looking at just how different people act. The New Deal turned a recession into a depression is causes the problems we see today. And to say the military is overblown and useless clearly shows you have no clue what the military actually does. In 1928 and 2008 we saw crashes that were similar. For example we saw a crash in 1921 but nobody talks about it because recovery was quick without a "new deal". In fact during that time ideas that were proposed in the new deal were proposed then but shot down. Funny how we saw a fast recovery. The same can be said about the Panic of 1837 and 1873. And in the late 70s (under Carter and the democrats BTW). All we similar crashes but recoveries in around 5 years or less. In the 80s is when we saw close to 10%. Actually in the past 30 years the middle class has seen growth. Look at disposable income. Look at how our technology improved to where we are driving better cars, have better phones, better computers and an overall better lifestyle. I am not saying that it has all been great. Areas such as healthcare price going up and college tuition going up is not great, but that is due to the federal government. Our problems stem from the federal government. In terms of wealth gap, consider this. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Around 60% of a homeowner's wealth is tied into their home. Beyond owning a home the average person does not have much wealth.
    1
  11. +Ylze Tyr So why did you run away from the other thread? Was it because I made you look like a fool by displaying your contradictions?
    1
  12. +Ylze Tyr No, when I asked you questions you just ran away because you knew you had no answers. I did not change the subject, it was all connected. It is no different then the other thread when I quoted from a textbook, you ran away from that as well.
    1
  13. +Brandon Jackson There are always economic recessions, it is how we recover is key. Under Obama and the democrats there has been no recovery. For WMD, there was intelligence from other countries making that claim, you can't lay all of that on Bush.
    1
  14. +vuk911 The WHO is not a reliable source. It ranks countries like San Marino high on the list when it is a country that is basically a resort for rich people from Italy and France. Or Malta and Andorra whose combine population is less than most of our major cities. You see I can actually break down certain statistics and facts and show how they are relevant and what they really mean. You just take things on face value. As far as life expectancy is concerned, you have to deal with John Schneider of University of Iowa and Robert Oshfeldt of Texas A&M. Look up the definition of diversity, it has to do with more than just race. I guess according to you if there are no black people there isn't any diversity. But to me it is different cultures, and considering how different each state is that is why I say the US is so diverse. But of course instead of seeing people you see skin color and call me a racist for it. 5 times is much smaller. 300 million is much larger than 60 million, and is larger diversity. Why can't you have universal healthcare with diversity? Look at each countries' healthcare, they are different in many ways. It isn't that Germany, France, Canada, UK and so on all all the same system. They all have a system that is different in some way. That is my point. What might work in one state will not necessarily work in another. If you want to establish universal healthcare at the state level then I am all ears, but at the federal level I am not. Also you never want to put all that power in one area, especially in a country of over 300 million people. The founding fathers saw this in the past and we should support it now. You want to give all that power to the federal government, fine. But I don't want you to complain when future politicians take advantage of it and screw you over. This is the main difference between you and me....you want government.....I want government but I also want to control government. The New Deal did turn a recession into a depression. You say conservatives had 3 years to fix it. When FDR took over he prolong the recovery for almost a decade. It took the war and his death to lead to a recovery. And the size did not matter I cited other recessions that were just as large. The one in the late 70s was as large as the one in 2007-2008. On military spending look at percent of GDP, the US is 4th in the world when that is considered. How close to 10%? Try 8.5%. You really need to do some research, theses sources are easy to find. Disposable income has been growing, the idea that "all new income is going to the rich" is deceptive and says nothing, especially in terms of wealth creation. So despite a weak economy things still improved? The rich are not stashing money. And the term "slave wages" is appealing to emotions, slaves were forced to work.
    1
  15. +vuk911 http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/ https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DSPIC96
    1
  16. +vuk911 I can give out more sources if you want
    1
  17. +Ylze Tyr You did run away.
    1
  18. +Ylze Tyr Plus I just responded to vuk.
    1
  19. +Ylze Tyr What is wrong with attacking a source? WHO is saying that a nation fully composed of rich individuals has great healthcare. That is like saying the NFL has great athletes when compared to Case Western University. Also, I responded to him later because I was at work during the time. Unlike you I have a job and responsibilities.
    1
  20. +Ylze Tyr Don't lose your mind buddy
    1
  21. +vuk911 That is a problem, the WHO doesn't care to factor in several variables in making their rankings. Population size plays a role. Malta is an island with a small population and low diversity. They don't face anywhere near the problems that the US faces. This is like comparing your local high school football team to the New York Giants, it can't be done. As I said, unlike you I can see issues like that, you can't. As far as those other countries? As I said, different societies. Japan has a history of being isolated until the mid 1800s, that plays a role. You are looking at healthcare but removing variables that you don't like but do play a role. Even at that if you were to compare all the states on face value you will see that there are very settle differences. For example, in overall life expectancy the US is at 78 years, Japan I believe is at 81 years. The world average is 71 years with a standard deviation of 7 years. That three year difference between Japan and the US is called noise. As I showed you before, if you remove certain variables not associated with healthcare the US ends up having a higher life expectancy. You can have an argument if Japan had a life expectancy of 80 years and the US had 60 years, but that isn't the case. Diversity has a lot to do with healthcare and policy in general. People have different experiences and ideas and thus support different policies. You see this all across the world and even in the US. You want to establish a one size fits all policy when you can't unless you force everyone to be the same as you. This is how communist countries were established and other countries who practice universal healthcare do similar things, such as mandatory military in Denmark or S. Korea. Even at that all those countries do something different which you keep ignoring. So which country's model should we follow? "my only point is that healthcare should be paid via taxes, and that EVERY SINGLE person should be covered. That`s all." Then who is going to stop prices from going up? Hospitals will raise prices if it is paid by tax dollars. The citizens don't care because they are not directly paying for it. It is no different then when the federal government raises the min. wage and businesses counter by cutting hours and raising prices. Or when taxes go up and businesses move money off shores. You tell someone that you are going to rob their car the next day the next day that person is going to move their car an lock it up. You seem to not realize that people will act differently when something happens. "This would have been a valid point if there were no republicans, also known as people who cheer when a politician say "I am not going to give people healthcare" Not every state wants universal healthcare. If that is the case then why should you care? Unless you want to live in some fascist society that you force others to live the life you feel is right. That comes down to diversity again, everyone is different? Why don't you accept and praise that? I do. If a state wants to have universal healthcare then great, they can have it. People who want it can move there, others can put it to a vote in their state and pass it. You have this false feeling that states that don't establish it don't care when in reality the citizens don't want it. That is the beauty of state rights, citizens establish governments they want as opposed to others forcing their ideas down their throats. You are the same person who supports the federal government doing A, B and C, but when other politicians get in power and do X, Y, and Z that others in the country like, but you oppose, you complain. Think about that for awhile. I have and that is why I support state rights. What power? The power to give and take. The military is really limited in what it can do in the US. For example the military can't enforce state laws without the consent of that particular state's congress or governor. The way the constitution was written the US government has very limited power over the citizens. For example an individual income tax was unconstitutional. Giving the federal government the ability to pay for healthcare means they can just cut it off. Or if it doesn't work managing and changing it is not easy if at all. At the state level you have more control of the government and you can change policy easier. You can also move if you don't like how a state is being ran. You have that in smaller countries as well with less diversity which also brings us back to how we really can't be compared to other countries. During the passage of Obamacare almost every state wanted healthcare reform, but it was really hard to get 60 democrats in the senate to agree to one bill. The reason why is that they all wanted something different. Obamacare was passed with corruption and was forced down our throats. Is that what you support? How would you feel if the republicans did that? I bet you won't like it, but that is the government you want to establish. "Provide a quote of me where I said that universal healthcare shouldn`t be controlled and supervised. Can you do it? Just so you know, if you ignore it, I will write it again until you answer." I just did. I gave you several examples in what goes on already. Look at the situation we are in. When the federal government talks about some sort of welfare reform people are shaking in their boots on losing their money. It is scary we are that dependent on the government. And if the federal government cuts spending in healthcare what do we do? Vote? Ok, vote for your 2 senators out of 100 who can't even agree on something. Or vote for your handful of representatives in the house when there is 435 members. Yep, your voice is really strong at the federal level. Where at the state level you can vote for a larger portion of the politicians and even move. So I guess I should ask you, how do you expect to control and supervise universal healthcare? Explain that to me. As far as I see you want the government to pay for it and somehow it will all just work. "When he took over it was already a depression. P.S:  Unemployment in 1932? 23,6% Unemployment in 1946? 3,9% But yes, yes...I know... It`s the war...War did it, it has nothing to do with the New Deal. Classic, classic tricks.." Wow, 14 years later. What a success. Plus FDR was dead then. You also have to consider that during the war we were one of the last countries to enter thus people were put to work to provide resources for other countries. And afterwards we were one of the few countries to not be destroyed, so globally we were ahead of the game. But 14 years later is not a success when every other recession took around 5 years or less. Plus our national debt went up. Plus, as Henry Morgenthau Jr. said "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work....We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be.... I don"t pay what I should. People of my class don"t. People who have it should pay.... After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!" What a success I must tell you. "US spends more than China, Russia, SA, Germany, France, India and GB combined. " And once again look at percent of GDP. I gave you a source on GDP growth. How did technology and medicine get better? Because of a strong economy. And people have to work, that is how wealth is created. I guess we can all sit around and it just appears out of nowhere, but the reality is that is not how it works. And if the rich were stashing money (which they aren't), ever thought it was the high taxes that scared them away?
    1
  22. +vuk911 What is wrong with pointing out the flaw that you can't compare the US to Malta? I don't twist statistics, I analyze them. There is a difference. I realize there there are several variables involved in a stat. You learn that when you take a graduate level statistics course where as you just take what others say as truth as long as you agree with it. "WHAT THE FUCK does it have to do with healthcare??? No, seriously...Can you even try to explain it? You didn`t thus far, it would have been fun to listen. Some people need to see a doctor when they get cancer and some don`t? Is that the point?" I explained it quite well. You have a different society. You have a society that just acts different. Certain programs will run better with them. We can go farther. After WWII Japan was destroyed by the bombs. For the next few generations they developed a society that worked very hard to rebuild and they continue to work hard. You seem to think that everyone acts the same, that different societies means nothing when it comes to policy. That shows how myopic and ignorant you are no the topic in general, or how the world works. When people look at quality of healthcare one area they point is life expectancy. See you don't even know how organizations like the WHO even come up with their healthcare rankings? But yet you are so quick to believe it. That is sad on your part. And yes, the difference in life expectancy is noise because it is still within one standard deviation. "You can say this about everything. I mean literally every single thing ever. -Free elementary schools? Nah...to much diversity. -Should murder be illegal? Of course not, because diversity." What type of elementary schools? What should they teach? You are going on the extreme here. I support a government educational system at the state level, but how it is managed can be different. Same with murder laws. What should the punishment be? Some states react differently with stricter laws such as the death sentence. I never said that Denmark and S. Korea were communist countries. I said those healthcare "work" there because of something like mandatory military makes people basically all the same. In communist countries in order to get them to work you have to have a homogeneous society. You can't have diversity. And no, I am not 15, I am a PhD candidate and I can tell by what you are saying that you lack much intelligence yourself. "100% not true. If you give government an ability to negotiate the deal for millions of people, the prices will go down." Yep, like it does with the subsidize and college loans and tuition......oh, wait.....tuition is sky rocketing right now. Basically what you just said the price going down has no evidence and won't work in any economical theoretical model. But if it makes you feel good to believe it then fine. The fact is that the government is picking up the tab, it isn't negotiating anything. That means hospitals and pharmaceutical companies will just raise prices. What is going stop them? Citizens don't have because they are not directly paying for it. The government can't just stop paying because they said they will pick up the tab. And simply studying basic economics you will see that when you increase demand without increasing supply the price goes up. Raising the min. wage has effected unemployment. It has killed jobs for the low skilled. And nothing positive comes from raising it. I can see that not only do you lack experience in statistical analysis, but you also lack knowledge of economics. People die from inferior healthcare as well. Just because the government is going to pick up the tab doesn't mean that the healthcare will exist. We see that in other countries where they have long wait times and inferior care and people lose limbs or just die because of it. You have this false feeling that the healthcare is there and all we need is for the government to just dig it up and give it to us. That isn't true, and them picking up the tab will 1. increase our current 18 trillion dollar debt like the college loan program did 2. lower quality of healthcare 3. Give the federal government more power making us more dependent on it which can lead to more oppression You have a lot to learn buddy
    1
  23. +vuk911 And it is clear to see who was right in this debate. Typical response from a liberal. I bet you are going to vote for Bernie Sanders aren't you?
    1
  24. +Ylze Tyr The person blocked me and told me to f off. You consider that winning?
    1
  25. +Ylze Tyr And I bet you think the 2008 Detroit Lions were the best team ever. BTW, did you do the homework assignment I gave you? I really should have you write a summary on supply and demand curves and price ceilings and price floors.
    1
  26. +Tasheem Hargrove You never hear about the Panic of 1873, or the Panic of 1837, or the crash in 1921? Or the recession of the late 1970s early 1980s. You know why you never hear about those is because they were short recessions that commonly occur throughout history. Recessions happen and all but 2 were recovered from in around 5 years or less. All of those had little to no federal government actions to try to "fix" it. In 1929 another recession hits. What happens is that the federal government tried to "fix" it with massive spending and regulation under FDR. That is how it turned into a depression. By 1934-1935 we should have recovered, instead it kept going. We didn't recover until around 1939-40 which was the result of the war and eventually FDR's death. You ignore all the other recessions but always focus on the depression. It is the same under Obama. We have not recovered yet from the last recession. Yes a recession happened in 2007, but we have not recovered yet. The federal government also tried to spend in "fix" it and doubled the debt. It seems like you need to gather more facts.
    1
  27. +Tasheem Hargrove I know when Hoover was president. As I said, every other recession was recovered from in around 5 years or less with the hands off approach. Enter FDR with his new deal and spending and we ended up with a depression. Hoover was just the guy to blame, but you can't criticize him for what FDR did which turn a recession into a depression. It was FDR that created the Agriculture Adjustment Act which reduced the amount of crops being developed to raise prices on them. He halted wealth creation. And people wonder why we had soup lines. It was FDR that tried to spend his way out of the economy "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work....We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be.... I don't pay what I should. People of my class don't. People who have it should pay.... After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!" Henry Morgenthau, Jr. It is n coincidence that this recession, and the one from 2007-2008 saw slow recovery was also the only time the federal government tried to "fix" it with regulations and spending. Where every other recession saw the federal government do it's hands off approach and recovery was quick. It is predicted in economic models and is shown in reality. And the only reason why the war allowed for the recovery is because every other country was at war except for the US. That meant they demanded weaponary so those countries invested money into the US to develop wealth and create jobs. But if FDR were to regulate the amount of weapons being built it would have hindered economic growth as well.
    1
  28. +Tasheem Hargrove No, I just think you only like to hear what you want to hear. I agree Hoover was in office when the recession hit. As I said, recessions happen and every recession except for 2 we recovered from in around 5 years or less. All that we recovered from was due to the hands off government. The 2 we didn't was because the federal government tried to "fix" the economy. FDR didn't inherit anything, he fought for the job and won. FDR then proceeded to add new regulations and spending that led us through the longest recovery ever following a recession which turned it into a depression. So again Hoover enters the office and a recession starts for whatever reason. Four years later, still within the time frame of how long a recession lasts FDR comes in. Around 6 years later we finally recover due to the war. Those are the facts. FDR turned a recession into a depression. As I said in the beginning you never hear about the Panic of 1873 or he Panic of 1837, or the recession of 1921, or the one in the late 70s early 80s. Or the Panic of 1907. The reason why you never hear about them is because they were short due to the hands off federal government. In fact Hoover raised taxes in 1932 in when the pressure got to him to do something to try to help the economy. It obviously didn't work. You can try to look at it differently but it doesn't change the facts of 1. Every other recession we recovered from in around 5 years or less with the hands off government approach 2. The recession of 1929 was only 4 years old when FDR took over 3. Under FDR it lasted 6 years longer which his regulations and more spending
    1
  29. +Tasheem Hargrove What? The recession started in 1929, FDR took office 4 years into it. Going off of history if left alone we would have recovered by 1934-35. Instead under FDR it lasted longer. "Hoover used the hands off model for around a decade and it didn't work." Hoover was in office for 4 years.
    1
  30. +Tasheem Hargrove "That means Hoover tried the hands off philosophy for 13 years and still couldn't get the country out of the Depression." Ok, some math 1932-1929=? Answer the question
    1
  31. +Tasheem Hargrove What do I need to read? I agree with what you are saying is correct, you just lack understanding of what really happened. Hoover was just the target for the American people to use. But the pure fact is that under FDR the recovery took a long time because he prolonged it. He got away when what he did because he can blame Hoover. You know, this all sounds familiar. Wait, Obama got away with what he did because he could blame Bush. But those who understands history and economics can see that FDR hindered recovery.
    1
  32. +Tasheem Hargrove At the federal level it doesn't. 1. They are programs that are losing money 2. It created too much of a dependence on the government. Talks of reforming it is met with strong resistant which is sad. We should not be this dependent on the federal government. At this point we rely on them so much they control us. The very problems that are brought up in politics stem from programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. People complain about money in politics but the way to solve it is to remove the power government has. Money in politics is just as symptom of a disease. That disease is the federal government have too much power. If people want money out of politics then they have to remove those programs. But they are so attached to them that it won't happen. This is the exact problem the founding fathers wanted to avoid and is a reason why FDR was not a good president.
    1
  33. +Charla Lee People get into Harvard and Yale because of political connections. Obama had a lot of them like Bush did. That is how Obama became president. It is a legit criticism of him.
    1