Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Sanders Asked About Evil "Big Government"" video.

  1. +PerTheLemonCurry Military spending is actually constitutional, and it is the only federally ran program that actually works.
    8
  2. +gerard bain So by what you are saying is that government provided the infrastructure that was so inferior it falls apart.
    2
  3. +qwertyu600 So you trust those basic needs in the hands of the all knowing, and all moral government?
    2
  4. +Ohmaly Swartz True, but in order for government to represent the people more it has to be as local as possible. That is in the constitution as well with state rights.
    2
  5. +Evan Rondinelli Ok, how much money should government have? And what should the money be spent on? And how much for each program? And to get that money what should the tax rate be?
    1
  6. +MJ Specialties It should be free
    1
  7. So when asked about government spending he immediately goes to wealth growth. And then he starts talking about free stuff and more spending. He did not answer the question. The question is legit. We have a document that states the limit of the federal government, it is called the constitution. It also exposes a flaw in Bernie's thinking. He wants to expand government and more social programs but he does not get into detail how. One detail he has to give is where is the limit. How much do we spend on "free college"? Enough so everyone can go or only those who the government determines is qualified. How much do we spend on infrastructure? How much do we spend on healthcare? There has to be a limit.
    1
  8. The harsh reality is that Bernie's campaign is ran off of two things, 1. rich people are bad 2. free shit He was asked a legit question that was asked to get into details on his plans, something he rarely does and when he does the major flaws are exposed. So when asked a question he typically goes to 1. rich people are bad 2. free shit He did it here, he immediately went to how all the wealth went to the top-rich people are bad. He then started to offer "free colllege" and "free healthcare"-free shit That is the Bernie Sanders' campaign.
    1
  9. +Evgeny Savelev Bernie's campaign is ran off of two things 1. rich people are bad 2. free shit For years he have been asked questions like this and he has always dodged them and resorted back to those talking points. He has been in congress for over 2 decades, he should at least have a general idea of what to say. But instead he goes back to 1. rich people are bad 2. free shit The reality is that he is doing this to deceive the public. He has no plan. You can't expect to pay for all of those programs without radical change.
    1
  10. +Evgeny Savelev To start I would not take economic advise from Noam Chomsky, he is not smart. FDR turned a recession into a depression with his new deal. That is not the model we should be copying. "America started sliding down when Raegan overturned the new deal." Under Reagan we saw a recovery. We had economic growth. Bernie has been in congress for over 2 decades. He doesn't have to be a "quick thinker". He should have a general idea of what he wants to put in place. The fact that he doesn't makes me question what he has been doing for those 2 decades. I am sure glad our tax dollars were spent well on him. "Mathematically and economically his propositions make a lot of sense" No it doesn't. We are $18 trillion in debt as is. His $15/hr min. wage is arbitrary and several businesses can't afford it. And not just businesses, but small communities in the rural area. The math is simple, the money is not there. If you really are a math major with an economic background then I suggest you get your money back. Also you are disregarding several societal factors as well in his policies that will cause them to fail. He is bad at communicating his ideas because he does not have any. He has been asked questions like this for a while now. Even a supporter of his, Bill Maher, asked similar questions months ago and he could not answer them. You will think that by now he will have some sort of answer.
    1
  11. +Evgeny Savelev Clinton worked well with a republican congress. Reagan worked well with a democrat congress. You have to remember that. Also you are complaining about Bush's deficit when under Obama, and a democrat congress, the debt doubled. "Trickle down economics" is not an economic term. It is a political term designed to be an ad hominem attack on a person without breaking down their actual policies. Repealing Glass-Steagall did not cause the recession that was a decade later. What caused the recession was the natural growth of the economy. Recessions happen, recovery is key. Noticed that under FDR and Obama we saw the slowest recovery ever. Also noticed that under them they were the only times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending. In 1920 we saw a recession that was just as bad as the one in 1929 and 2008. The federal government did nothing and guess what, in a year we recovered fully. I don't watch Fox News, I don't have cable. I have rabbit ears and get only a handful of stations.
    1
  12. +Evgeny Savelev You keep bringing up Glass-Steagall like you have a hand of 4 aces. People blame "deregulation" on the recent recession but can only point to the partial Glass-Steagall repeal. And yes it was a partial repeal under he Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. During the crash of 2008 companies such as AIG, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual and so on suffered the most where none of those companies would have been under Glass-Steagall's restriction. So even with Glass-Steagall those companies still would have failed. Saying that the Glass-Steagall repeal caused the recession displays massive ignorance. I agree with math, I have a math minor to go with my physics and chemistry degrees. I use math a lot in my PhD studies. The fact is that you lack understanding of economics. It is federal government involvement that causes problems and history shows that. What makes you think I am a Trump supporter?
    1
  13. +Evgeny Savelev http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis There is a nice article on the topic. Chomsky is a great writer but that is it. Being a great writer does not mean being intelligent. In fact it largely means being deceptive. To someone who isn't as experienced or knowledgeable they can easily get fooled by writing. But others can look past that. It is the whole "can't see the forest for the trees" idea.
    1
  14. +Evgeny Savelev "Besides your article suggests that Glass-Steagall was one of the reasons 2008 happened. " Actually if you read the the article it said "at best". It did not say it was a factor. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills more.
    1
  15. +Evgeny Savelev I am staying on point. You said the Glass-Steagall repeal led to the financial crisis of 2008. I gave you an article that said that, at best, it was one factor. You claimed that it was a factor based off of that article which shows you simply can't read (or love to twist words around).
    1
  16. +Evgeny Savelev Also, I am not using personal attacks. If you want to go that route you stated in the comment earlier "I have a brain and I can think logically, grant me this superpower, please" And you say I am doing personal attacks or can't be taken seriously?
    1
  17. +Evgeny Savelev You also said this "Just stop repeating the Fox News propaganda and do some fact checking." and "And you are either a genius or a ... to be able to accurately gauge my understanding of economics based on how little is written here. Based on your previous remark on Prof Chomsky, I lean towards a ..." Now who is doing personal attacks here?
    1
  18. +Evgeny Savelev That piece was from NPR which is supposed to be a non-partisan source. It is always possible to take risk. That is why other businesses failed that would not have been restricted by Glass-Steagall. I guess you missed that point at well. "but ultimately the root cause is the lack of regulation." Again, what "lack of regulation"? All you can point to is Glass-Steagall which still had a large portion of it in effect.
    1
  19. +Evgeny Savelev Again, what about businesses such as AIG or the Lehman Brothers? Also you are basing your reasoning off of an opinion. You feel that Glass-Steagall is the blame with nothing to justify that. You are also blaming one thing on a major crash. The reality is the recessions happen. What made this one worse was the bail outs. If the federal government did nothing like what was done in 1920 we would have recovered. Instead the federal government tried to "fix" the economy, it didn't work.
    1
  20. +Evgeny Savelev History. Look at every recession in the history of the US. Recovery was around 5 years or less. Recession such as the one in 1920, the Panic of 1873, the Panic of 1837, the recession in the late 70s and early 80s and so on. The ones in the 1800s took the longest due to the economy not being a developed, but recovery was still in around 5 years without federal government action. The two recessions that took the longest to recover from (one we still haven't yet) was the one in 1929 and the one in 2008. They were also time when the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending and increase regulations. What got us out of the Great Depression was the war because it distracted the federal government in domestic policies and other countries invested in the US for arms. The recession from 2008 we still haven't recovered from. History shows that when the federal government gets involved recovery is hindered at best.
    1
  21. +Evgeny Savelev " I am afraid you are mixing correlation with causation." So can I say the same thing about Glass-Steagall? When you blame Glass-Steagall for the recession of 2008 can I just say "you are mixing correlation with causation"? The fact is that there is a really strong trend there. You clearly don't understand wealth distribution. The problem is that wealth just doesn't exist, it has to be created. Wealth has always been near the top because the simple fact is that beyond owning a home the average person has little wealth. The average homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter, and the average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Think about it, people have little wealth because not everyone wants to be like the Walton family and own half of Walmart. The policies implemented in 1929 and now are similar in that they were massive government spending to "fix" the econmoy. "Back in 2008 the economy didn't stop growing. The big firms didn't bankrupt, the money continued to flow. " Really? "I am sorry, but do not agree with your argument that historical examples here demonstrate any causation." Then if that is the case then you have to accept the fact that Glass-Steagall did not cause the recession of 2008.
    1
  22. +Evgeny Savelev Yes you don't understand wealth distribution. You have to understand what wealth is first. Why did big companies like Walmart and IBM and so on do well? Because they have more resources to withstand tougher times until the economy stabilizes. That is why big companies love big government because it can work in their favor. That is why government involvement and regulations work in their favor because it hurts smaller competitors. "Nope, the projects on which the money were spent should also be considered." Nope, the federal government should not be involved in domestic spending or perturbing the economy at all. I have no clue what charts you are reading. Spending was up in the mid 1910s because of WWI. But it dropped before 1920. So no, spending was not at 25% of GDP in 1920. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending Read your history, you will see that in 1920 we had a crash and the federal government did nothing which lead to a recovery a year later. Looking at the chart you see that spending was being reduced in 1920. During the recession of 1929 government spending went up where in 1920 it was on a decline. So it seems like you need to do some more research and read graphs better. Taxes were not slashed in the 1970s. In 1968 (or 67, one of the two years), 155 Americans earning over $200,000 a year paid $0 in taxes. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 was developed to create the min. income tax. It lowered the marginal tax but was an effort to raise taxes. So no, taxes were not cut. Also, raising taxes does not mean raising revenue. Look at this table (maybe you can read a table since you struggle at reading charts) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205 Tax revenue as a percent of GDP has been around the same. If raising taxes increased revenue then why not a 100% tax rate? The reality is that it isn't that simple as raising taxes.
    1
  23. +DCLUVSPIE No, it is because the employees in the military are discipline and trained to be productive. That as opposed to workers in the IRS or EPA or other federally ran programs that is more or less a jobs creation program.
    1
  24. +Kyrie Irving And I can respond that the limitations of government are already listed in the constitution. Show me where government is supposed to run healthcare and education?
    1
  25. +Kyrie Irving Actually the states and local government run K-12 education and most funding comes from local governments. The only real funding form the federal level is for at risk schools which is small, and that is only if states decide to establish the education standards put in place which is currently CCSS that 42 states have adopted. So not every state follows federal standards. So right there you are not correct in pointing towards K-12 education. It is ran locally and is constitutional due to the 10th amendment. Medicare is unconstitutional and regulations on insurance companies is as well. Now while you may feel that should not matter if we don't follow the constitution we get ruling like what happen in Kelo vs City of New London where your property can be given, by force to private companies. Think about it.
    1
  26. +Kyrie Irving Public education is provided by the local government which follows the 10th amendment. Education is not listed once in the constitution which then it defaults to the 10th amendment. Medicare is not listed anywhere in the constitution as well thus that issue should fall to the states as well. "Congress has the power to “to lay and collect taxes”" Now read Article 1 Section 9 "No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken". Before the 16th amendment individual federal income taxes were unconstitutional, and that was challenged many times, like after the war of 1812 for example when a temporary income tax was proposed but quickly shot down. The federal government was not supposed to have control over individuals. It was a tax on the states based off of population. So when you read "lay and collect taxes" it means a tax on the states. "to “provide for the…general welfare of the United States.” " What is the key word there....general. That does not mean take form someone and give to others. That does not mean give welfare to someone at the expense of others. General means all and broad. For example funding a navy to protect against foreign enemies. So please, point out where I am lying here.
    1
  27. +Kyrie Irving "Also the 14th Amendment requires that when a state establishes a public school system" Nope, wrong. Show me where in the 14th amendment that the word "education" is listed. The 14th amendment is only related to education in this way, if a state is going to offer public education then it has to offer it to everyone. But it does not say that a state has to offer public education. So you show me where in the 14th amendment that states has to establish public education then I will give you every single dime in my checking account which is over $5000. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the federal government is supposed to provide medicare. Medicare is a unconstitutional program. Trust me, people do dispute the constitutionality of it. I am beginning to see that you are falling apart your argument considering how you are now using words like "wack jobs" in your argument. I suggest that you open you mind a bit and learn to question things in life instead of getting angry when you are proven wrong.
    1
  28. +Kyrie Irving Ok, so you have zero interest in the topic. I have to ask you, what is your feeling on citizens united?
    1
  29. +gerard bain What deregulation? And lack of funding? We are $18 trillion in debt. "The government's responsibility is to provide services for its people." The government's responsibility is listed in the constitution. No where is infrastructure spending listed. Most infrastructure spending is local anyway. Maybe if the federal government were to lower federal taxes and regulations then more money will be available to the states. "Private cooperations responsibility is to maximise profits" One, corporations are a small part of our economy. A lot of businesses are local. Next, a part of maximizing profits is doing the job right the first time. It seems like we should go the private route if that is the case considering how miserable the government is at building things and their $18 trillion debt.
    1
  30. +Toby Magyver What infrastructure as built that long ago? Also, you do know most infrastructure spending is local.
    1
  31. +gerard bain FDR turned a recession into a depression. If that is the model you want to follow then I suggest you study some more history and economics. What is your point on ExxonMobil? Also, you do know, that best we can convert around 40% of solar energy into electricity, and that is at best.
    1
  32. +gerard bain A little history lesson for you. In 1920 we had a crash just as bad as the crash of 1929. Harding was doing nothing but under pressure told Hoover to devise a plan to "fix" the economy. He developed the plan but by the time it was brought forth to the economy, with no federal government action, a year later was recovering. Come the crash of 1929 Hoover, under immediate pressure put forth his plan to "fix" the economy which involved massive spending. It did not work. FDR took over and expanding Hoover's plan which made the situation worse and would have continued longer if it weren't for the war. FDR prolonged the recession which turned it into a depression. You see, this country has seen several recessions such as the one in 1920 (which I bet you never heard of until now), the Panic of 1837, the Panic of 1873, the recession of the late 70s and so on. All recessions except for two had little to no federal government involvement to "fix" the economy and recovery was in around 5 years or less. In later times when we were more developed that time frame was shorter. The two recessions that took the longest to recover from were the recession of 1929 and the one we are currently in. They are also recessions the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending, like what FDR did. Any intelligent person knows that FDR turned a recession into a depression. Saying FDR was a good president is like saying Matt Millen was a good GM for the Detroit Lions. One reason why funding in research in development of photovotaic cells is so high is because China has cornered the market in lanthanides which are used for up and down conversion in solar energy. They have done that because of less environmental regulations. It takes around 10 years to build a mine in the US where in China it does not. So they can actually dig up their lanthanides and use them where in the US we can't because building mines are supposedly bad for the environment. So you want more research for solar energy then you have to reduce regulations. I will admit I have not heard of the plan Japan is doing, but based off of what you said it sounds highly inefficient to where it is impractical considering the cost it would take to put satellites in the air. And that is just start up cost, never mind maintenance.
    1
  33. +Eric Taylor Nope, a government with too much power mess things up. Politicians with power do things that benefit them and their interest group.
    1
  34. +qwertyu600 "More equal"? What is "more equal"? " everyone should have the same opportunities especially during childhood. " So are you suggesting that the government takes kids away from parents and raise them all in the same environment? And when does someone stop being a child?
    1
  35. +qwertyu600 Education is not a basic need.
    1
  36. +qwertyu600 Actually I am highly educated, I pursued it on my own though.
    1
  37. +qwertyu600 Well I am getting my PhD for starters.
    1
  38. +qwertyu600 I have.
    1
  39. +qwertyu600 Actually it doesn't. And you live in a country that is different than the US with a different culture.
    1
  40. +qwertyu600 You can't change how over 300 million people think and act. Even Bernie Sanders supporters will resist the change he is wanting to make as soon as they see the results.
    1
  41. +qwertyu600 You have to drastically change how our culture thinks and act. Also a vast majority of Bernie supporters are college age kids. The second they go out looking for a job and trying to buy a home they will see how bad his programs are and push to change them, that is if they even get passed.
    1
  42. +qwertyu600 I do know how they think. Take college for example. Bernie wants "free college" and justifies it by looking at other nations. What he doesn't say is that one, those nations limit who can go to college. If people in the US learned that they will revolt. The second issue is that a major part of colleges in the US is athletics. His "free college" will drastically change college athletics which people won't like. You can't change how 300 million people think and act drastically without radical force.
    1
  43. +qwertyu600 Ok, but you did not prove anything. What I said is legit. The fact that you can't debunk it and simply go of rhetoric shows you lack understanding on the issues.
    1
  44. +qwertyu600 In other countries they prevent people from going to college if the government feels you are not smart enough. In he US you can. So in other colleges people can just forget about college. In other countries people get inferior care and have to wait longer times for it. People die or lose limbs because of it.
    1
  45. +Dyvim Tvar There are a lot of critical thinking skills involved in sports.
    1
  46. +qwertyu600 One, it is debatable if those countries are actually successful, they deal with problems themselves. Also, you are completely ignoring cultural differences with every country, that is the point. Which country's model do you want to follow? Germany who tracks students so if you are not capable of going to college you are not accepted as deemed by the government? Or Norway who subsidizes their socialism with oil? Or Denmark who has mandatory military? You are making a very simplistic argument here which displays you lack of understanding of the issues.
    1
  47. +Dyvim Tvar " Guess that's why you think taxes paying for something makes it "free"." When you are disproportionally taxing one group of people more it is free for those who pay far fewer, if any taxes, like yourself.
    1
  48. +qwertyu600 " he'll listen to the people. :)" Which people? He is not listening to me? Yes Germany tracks their students, and other countries have strict limitations on colleges enrollment as well. Why do I have to serve in the army? I find that violating my rights. So you are saying socialism takes away rights? Or that socialism kills jobs so you must work a government job first. The US has oil.
    1
  49. +qwertyu600 Because we have an entire group of people, Bernie being a part of that, that feels oil is yucky and refuses to drill for it.
    1
  50. +qwertyu600 I see how you think. You have to consider those same people don't like our military. So how can we steal oil, which you think we do, from other countries without an army.
    1