Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "MSNBC Smugly Dismisses Bernie Sanders" video.

  1. Bernie Sanders is a career politician with zero real world experience. His policies are completely flawed and would be flat out destructive to the country if ever put in place.  He talks well to gain votes but his track record is basically empty.  Sanders will never win a presidential election because he is so radical.  That is why he is not a serious candidate. 
    2
  2. Sanders is too radical, money aside Sanders will never win.  The entire country is not as dumb as VT is.
    1
  3. Asher8328 They are radical.  He basically wants to develop a strong central government which would be unchecked and lead to even more problems we have now.  You mention getting money out of politics.  The reason there is money in politics because they have power to be bought.  You have this fantasy that there will be a time where corrupt politicians will never exist, problem is they will.  
    1
  4. ***** While Sanders may have good intentions the problem is that he is setting up a system where future politicians can take advantage. It was no different than Herman Cain's 9 9 9 plan.  When asked what is going to prevent future politicians from raising any one of those taxes he had on answer.  I would like to see how Sanders would answer the question on how will he prevent future politicians from taking advantage of the new power they have after he is gone. 
    1
  5. He is a career politician with zero experience in the real world.  He is everything that is one huge problem in politics.
    1
  6. ThePharphis His economic policies would be destructive.  For starters he talks about a "living wage".  What is a "living wage"?  It is a made up term that means nothing.  Every time the min. wage goes up so does unemployment for those with low skills thus those at a disadvantage can't get a job.  His policy of a so call "living wage" would hurt employment opportunities for those with low skills keeping them from moving up and eventually living a life of poverty. He talks about college loans.  At one time he had letters from those with college loans facing huge debt.  He never once mentioned about those with college loans with plans to pay them off. He never once talked about how people are not being responsible with college loans.  He basically wants free college which will destroy our college education in the US which is the best in the world. His ideas of socialized healthcare won't work in the US.  We don't have enough doctors and hospitals.  We can't consume what we don't produce.  To increase doctors and hospitals we either have to pay more money increasing healthcare cost, ration it out which lowers quality (something other countries do), or force doctors and hospitals to take on more than they can basically forcing them to work which is like slavery. One can go on but the fact is that Sanders has this imaginary idea that the government can produce and infinite amount of everything magically.  It can produce infinite amount of healthcare or money or other resources just with the signing of a bill.  He policies fall apart when questioned and his only counter argument is to attack the Walton family, the Koch brothers, and to support giving away stuff that somehow are going to appear out of nowhere.  If he policies were enacted we would turn into like Venezuela with higher crime and people not having toilet paper or food.    
    1
  7. ReliableInsider Here it is, the attack that I don't support higher wages just because I don't support an artificial price floor.  I support stronger purchasing power.  The min. wage eliminates jobs for those at a disadvantage so now they have zero purchasing power.  The min. wage also raises prices so those who are low income are a weaker purchasing power. There will always be higher demand because people naturally demand better goods and services.  Look at cars, TVs, computers, cell phones etc.  People are not demanding a brick cell phone anymore but a Galaxy S5.  Problem is that you can' consume what you don't produce.  Paying someone on the bottom more money isn't going to help because there is nothing for that money to purchase with which is why prices go up if the min. wage goes up.  You have production and progress from investments which comes from profits and from the top.  You don't improve society from bringing people down, you improve it by bringing everyone up.
    1
  8. Sondre C. No they are not.  Problem is that we wouldn't have that problem if the federal government didn't have so much power to begin with.  That is the number one flaw of Sanders, he wants to increase the power of the federal government.  While it may be in good intentions he is setting up a system where the federal government can be bought in the future with no liability on them.   
    1
  9. ***** In the past before FDR we have seen recessions in this country but we quickly got out.  During FDR's time it was the first time that we slowly got out of a recession and it happened during a time when the federal government enacted more socialist programs.  It was socialism and government involvement, much like what is happening now, that slows the growth after a recession.   
    1
  10. ***** FDR was a socialist.  He was opposed by congress and the SC a lot but if not he would have been no different than Hugo Chavez. The US was still developing during the early 1900s.  In case you haven't noticed now but individuals are living with their parents longer and pursuing college more.  The average work weak is 32 hours a weak and the average wage is $24/hr.  People are naturally going to try to work for less for more pay.  People are going to naturally try to put their children in a position to be more successful than themselves.  You didn't need government involvement to eliminate child labor and longer work days, the free market was going to do that in itself.  The problem with socialism is that you can't consume what you don't produce.  Where are you going to get all these goods and services socialism promises?  Thin air? Socialism never works because there is nothing to consume unless you don't mind low quality.
    1
  11. karl john http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm By August 2014 it was $24.53/hr.  Learn to do some research before you comment.
    1
  12. ***** You have a point in that $24/hr means nothing, it is purchasing power that is important. The problem with socialism is that it hurts purchasing power because you can't consume what you don't produce.  Artificially paying people these fake wages or giving them money does nothing if it produces nothing.  That is why socialism doesn't work.  It gives away money without producing anything. Break it down to you.  How will you personal finances be if you gave $20 a way a week and gained nothing from it?  You won't be very well off.  
    1
  13. ***** In socialism you are taking capital create from someone and giving it to someone else.  Eventually you are going to run out because 1, you are going to have more people who simply don't want to create and 2, those that do create will work in keeping more for themselves.  They don't want to see their hard work being stolen. People don't work well paying jobs because their market rate isn't that high.  Forcing bad investments is what ruins the economy.  You wouldn't overpay for something like electricity or gas?  Same as in a company won't overpay for labor.  
    1
  14. ***** Fact is human beings are commodities with price tags. What you described about socialism is actually a part of capitalism.  In socialism one person works and another reaps the benefits.   
    1
  15. ***** In capitalism those owners invest their money to create capital.  A worker chooses to take a job that gives them the best offer.  The capital they create is their wage/salary.  The owner invested their money in them along with other workers to create more capital for that company.  That owner takes that profit and expands their business by hiring more or creating a better good or service.  To say someone like Jamie Dimon makes a lot without lifting a finger is ridiculous.   I guarantee you that you would not be able to do the administrative work that he has to do.  He also does have the option to pay his workers $7.25/hr or not hire them at all but due to capitalism he pays them more.  Dimon worked for the vast majority of his money.  I say the vast majority because some has, as I imagine, come from federal government corruption which is another flaw in socialism, it can lead to corruption.
    1
  16. ***** The owner can choose the pay and the working conditions and they will get low quality of workers if they pay low wages and have poor working qualities.  From competition business owners have to pay more to attract the best workers. An owner invests money into workers to develop capital for a business.  To say that the owner investing money into the workers isn't working is not true.  Those owners work very hard and are taking the financial risk.  The workers he hires don't have to work for him and are not taking a financial risk. The Walton family earned their money.  FDR was a socialist and so is Obama.  The US is not a free market.  
    1
  17. sharper68 We are a 1st world nation.  What standards are you talking about?  What happens when owners are given the options.  Before FDR we have seen major crashes.  The Panic of 1837, 1857 and 1873, each time there was very little government involvement and we got out in 5 years or less.  Come FDR time that as the first time the federal government got involved during a crash.  We had price control, more regulations, more taxes and spending.  We were in the Great Depression for nearly 15 years.  It wasn't until the war that took us out.  After that we had little government involvement until Obama and now we are still in a depression because we never recovered. Funny how the two slowest times of recovery happened during more government involvement.  We have better working conditions and pay because of the free market.  It was government involvement that hurts all of those.   
    1