Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Ralph Nader Brilliantly Explains The Collapse Of The Democratic Party" video.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"emotional appeal is actually good, you implement laws solve problems and help people and therefor emotions matter. "
There is value in appealing to emotions. We are humans and we do irrational things because of that. But when you let your emotions overcome logic and thoughts then it becomes a problem. You need a balance. For example, when Bernie talks about a "living wage" I always question what his standards are. I agree, we should push for people to earn enough to live. But what are the standards? Having roommates or not? Walking to work or not? You need to bring that into the discussion. Also, you have to think if people earning a min. wage are poor to begin with?
"people dying becasue they cannot afford healthcare, nor even healthcare
insurance to help pay for healthcare, is not an emotional appeal.
children born with heart conditions that would automatically have their
coverage rescinded as a "pre-existing" conditions is wrong, and not
emotional appeal."
No system is idea. People lost their healthcare coverage because of Obamacare. Universal healthcare has led to deaths. .Every system has shortcomings, you have to realize that. You have to be honest. I hardly see that from the left.
"the growing breach between rich and poor, where the poor/tax payer is
co-opted to reimburse the rich (the current healthcare bill not only
gives 400 families between 500-800 billion in tax cuts and incentives
but is also going to pay them retroactively for the last 8 years of
Obama care, meaning they're going to get paid back fo all the taxes
they've paid fr the last 8 years as well.
"
Why do you want to tax the rich more? Because they are rich? That is appealing to emotions. You have to ask why they are rich. What value did they bring to society? Bernie's attack on the rich is appeal to emotion. Just because someone is rich is not justification to tax them at a higher rate.
"Kate's law is trump's emotional appeal he brought up a few people whose
family members were killed by an illegal immigrant and then pushed that
narrative that illegals are killing people left right and center,
despite the fact the FBI crime stats show illegal immigrants commit less
crime then most demographics in the country."
Illegal immigrants are committing a crime just by being here. With our poor economy we have to control immigration much more.
"well ted cruz is the last person to be asking that, becasue idiot is
right behind trump who has no issue "spending" money (especially on
himself)
"
OK, what?
"Bernie should have pointed to the Nordic counties and the socialist
European counties where they have next to know unemployment, free
healthcare, free education, one of the happiest populations in the
world, sure they need to pay a lot of tax but they cannot be said to not
have the benefits of such."
Those are small countries with different cultures and smaller populations. You can't compare them to the US. We have states with larger populations. Denmark had mandatory military for years, is that what you want? Norway drills for their oil and uses it to finance their country, do you want that? Germany tracks their students and limits who can and cannot attend college. Do you want that? And citing "happiness" is not an argument as you can't quantitatively measure that. Happiness is subjective. You are appealing to emotions there as you are assuming that US citizens are not happy. It all depends. If you look at me you might say I am not happy as I am stressed all the time. But I am productive and successful as a PhD candidate. I choose my life and I a fine.
"they also have lower populations then the states, and yet managed to make it work..."
Smaller populations allows one to micromanage those programs easier leading to less waste.
"but of course Bernie's only answer would be, tax the rich more (um no,
tax everyone more and then offer them services back, invest in the
people, their education, their health, increase the standards of living
and then allow them to contribute). "
So take my money that I earned because I am too stupid to spend it myself?
"Besides Cruz is just an embarrassment at this point,"
How?
1
-
" Happiness is an emotional state. '
It is also subjective.
"You can argue healthcare, but really, single payer is best for most things"
How so? It has advantages, but so does the free market (which we do not have by the way in the US). Every system has shortcomings and studies I have seen shown them. Also, you have to factor in different cultures.
" Tax the rich because they have it. I'm not nearly foolish enough to believe that they earn it."
Just because they have it does not mean they can take it. I am hungry, do you have food? Can I just take that food from you while holding a gun to your head? Sorry, but your argument is weak and 100% appealing to emotions. Just because the have it does not mean you can just take it.
"They inherit it for the most part. "
That is irrelevant but also not true. Over half of the rich did not inherit their wealth. Even at that, you complain about the rich inheriting things, what about career politicians?
" If you are studying all the time and living on beans and rice, I don't want to take your money and keep you down. "
That is my choice.
"If you think small countries work better than big ones, let's divide the country."
We do that already, it is called states. States run K-12 education. States fund 3/4 of roads. States and local governments run the police.
" I thought everyone who praised capitalism (not free enterprise) believed in economies of scale."
That is not true. People who support capitalism support simplifying the economy and micromanaging. Watch the video "Milton Friedman Crushes Man's Three Questions Like Dixie Cups". He is a capitalist and he explains government spending being local.
"You are the best judge of whether a sofa or a fancy smartphone would
make you the happiest, but if we build a new rail system, it will have
to be a collective choice. "
The more local that decision is the better. It is hard to get 2 people to agree on things. Now try that with 320 million. The more local government is the easier it is for people to agree on things and micromanage the economy leading to less waste and more wealth creation.
". If the individual cannot affect the election process because he can't
buy a $10,000 chicken dinner, or because they don't have an election,
he can't do anything to make his little piece of the world like he wants
it."
In capitalism no one effects the election as the government has limited power.
In order to have a government that doesn't bother us it has to be as local as possible so we can control it.
1
-
"I fully agree, that's an actual question of merits which should be
expanded upon and discussed. Which is why i said you can't just argue
from an emotional/moral stand-point you need an actual plan,actual
details.
bernie and co. believe that just the moral/empathetic feeling is
required, that's a part of it, but they're needs to be actual structure
behind it. "
And Bernie never does that which is why he lost. When you start to break down his policies you find out how vague they are and thus he can't support them.
"Actually a few things there.
first of all before Obamacare was no picnic either, Obamacare actually
got people healthcare, one reason why no one wants to lose healthcare
coverage now.
second what that was the coverage being lost, was called "catastrophic
coverage", which itself was a sham/rip off, and people were "losing"
coverage that was already charging them large deductibles but in reality
would not pay the whole thing/wasn't really coverage.
"
It doesn't matter is the coverage was "catastrophic care". It was their coverage and they were kicked off it. Also, people ended up paying more when Obama claimed people will pay less. Obamacare was a mess of a law which is why Democrats lost. People are paying more and are worse off. This excuse that "more are covered" does not fly with hard working people. You can only cater to the free loaders for so long. This is why there is not an ideal system as we lack doctors, nurses, surgeons, researchers, etc. We cannot cover more people without
1. raising prices
2. lowering quality
I am sorry but if I had to choice between paying more to help out the "least fortunate" who I do not know, or pay less, I will pick paying less. I help out the least fortunate around me. This is why I support smaller, more local government as people have very little problem helping out the least fortunate that are around them. I invited friends into my home who were homeless. But people do not want to help out others who are labeled as "less fortunate" in other states who they never interact with. That is why people want Obamacare gone.
"second. I'm sorry "not every plan is ideal" is poo excuse for, children
dying, people dying etc. etc. becasue they cannot basically "pay to
live" doesn't sound like it belongs in the "most wealthiest nation of
earth,""
People die, sorry if that fact surprises you. If you run through the numbers universal healthcare produces similar results.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
"Oh i do, but i would argue universal healthcare while not perfect has a
lot better results and benefits in it's corner to make it worth while. "
Read the book I just cited.
"again i hear rich people complaining that out of for example 60 million
dollars they only get to keep 20 million becasue of tax or etc.
Now tell me, have you ever had 20 million dollars? in your lifetime let
alone a year etc."
Why does it matter? A lot of rich people donate to charities. If I were rich I would want to keep it as well and spend it how I want. I do not want the federal government taking my money and wasting it on programs they support. I would want to spend it on programs I support. I don't want the government giving my money to a special interest group that benefits them. You are so fixated on the rich having all that money and jealousy has filled you so much that you are not even thinking about how much money the government wastes.
"Half of them were born/inherited it,"
Only 30 to 40 percent were. That still does not mean anything. How many politicians are career politicians and their kids became politicians? I never heard complaints about the Kennedys. And many people want Michelle Obama to run for president. Or they don't mind that Bernie Sanders was just a politicians his entire career.
" and others like Donald trump scammed, took advantage of loopholes,
didn't pay and or did underhanded deals, took money for certain elements
and or lobbied politicians and lobbyists to have their crimes legalized
through law..."
I don't blame Trump for that. I blame the politicians for creating those laws to begin with. Trump mentioned that many times in his campaign. Government has been growing for decades. Federal government spending was 14% of GDP after WWII, now it is 20%. And during that time defense spending was actually dropping, so do not mention the "military industrial complex". The government has been growing and politicians are getting richer. Bernie Sanders just bought a third home. And now you want that same government to control more taxes and your healthcare?
"Warren Buffet was not joking when he said in reality he pays less tax then his secretary."
Warren Buffet pays low taxes because he does not pay himself enough. Less then 1% of his income is earned as an individual. Almost all of his income is earned though the stocks of his company which is taxed less. If Buffet wants to pay more taxes he should simply pay himself more. There is a reason why there are individuals like Mark Zuckerberg pay themselves a $1. That is because being paid by stocks or through the company is taxed less.
1
-
"Actually the evidence shows that the jobs they take:
a. aren't the ones actual Americans want.
b. actual Americans can't do as efficiently or for the same wage, they
tried it in Alabama and couldn't pay them the same nor got the same
efficiency or work ethic.
"
That doesn't make it right. They are breaking the law. If you want someone who is legal to work then pay them more. Aren't you liberals always talking about higher wage? And if that person does not work hard then fire them and hire someone who will.
As for them paying taxes that is debatable as they are not hear legally. They are paid under the table. So the chances of them paying taxes is very low. But again, it does not make it right. Again, you appeal to emotions does not work with me.
"if the president can import his wives, hotel staff, and golf club staff
from foreign countries as well as his product lines, i don't see the
issue. "
They came here legally.
"Ted cruz stands beside trump...trump visits mara-lago every week, in the
last sixth months, he's already cost the tax payers a third to a 1/ of
what Obama cost them in 8 years...
becasue he goes to Florida so much, the coast guard have expended their
budget to patrol those waters, the coast guard that trump is defunding
to pay for his ICE (deportation) department.
among many other things,
i thought ted cruz was there to "halt" government spending/decadence? "
All that spending is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall budget. Also, I would like to see a source for this
" in the
last sixth months, he's already cost the tax payers a third to a 1/ of
what Obama cost them in 8 years..."
You are crying over peanuts at this point.
"So? you do know how tax works right, the larger the population the more
revenue, and becasue states and the federal government both have taxes
the states with the lesser populations who cannot generate as much of
the revenue are covered by the federal through government assistance."
You do know how managing a budget works, right? The smaller the population the easier it is to micromanage a policy. Compare it to this. Say you are going to Subway and you are going to buy sandwiches for you and 5 of your friends. You will get 6 individuals sandwiches. Now say you are buying it for 100 people who you hardly know. You are just going to get a plate of a bunch of generic sandwiches for everyone. You might get enough. If not then someone will go hungry. Or you might get too much which then some are wasted. But the point is that the larger the scale you will be increasing the possibility for
1. waste
2. inefficiency
3. not catering to people's needs
it isn't as simple as "more people more tax revenue". It goes beyond that. Also, you have to factor in different cultures as well. This is why Bernie Sanders supporters have nothing but appeal to emotions. Their ideas to too good to be true. I wish his ideas would work because they are simple. But the reality is that they are not that simple. It isn't as simple as "more people more tax revenue".
"you do know that many of the red states and southern states only survive
off of government subsidy and or the subsidy from other states going to
them right? cause their rural populations are so small they can't
generate sufficient tax revenue to cover their programs and needs.
i mean Kentucky spent 92 million dollars of tax payer money to build
that stupid noah's ark theme park in the middle of nowhere which is
surprise surprise having financially difficulty...something that ha
caused them massive revenue issues, and whose going to cover them if
they need it, the federal government...in theory. "
That is mainly a myth
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html
You also have to consider that members of the military come mostly from "red states" and reside there for tax reasons. So again, it isn't as clear as you try to make it out to seem.
"yeah it needed that becasue it's population is so small they needed
conscription in case...
the US has a standing army (already paid by taxes) i don;t think they
need them. besides Vietnam was a shit show and was one of the reason
they dropped the draft. "
But what about proportions? You just went on a rant about more people means more tax revenue. Well, does a large population mean we need to protect more people and thus need a bigger army? And that Denmark, being so small does not need that large of a military? You are contradicting yourself. Also, why don't other countries do it.
"they like everyone else outside America have actually begun to look into alternative energy sources"
They still rely on oil. And the US does use alternative forms of energy. Other countries, like France, does so out of necessity as they have no coal and have no oil. Again, it isn't as clear as you are trying to make it.
"We already do that, a. it's called apple, Microsoft, Facebook, lol you
can tract any electronic device such as computer or phone, anytime and
anywhere, and of course we already have who and cant go to
college...it;s called tuition costs. "
When I say track students I mean tracking their grades and making an opinion on if they are college material or not. In the US you can attend JuCos and CC's. You don't have that option in Germany. I was talking to an individual from Germany and his reaction to Bernie was that Bernie needs to stop lying. This guy was tracked for trade school so he moved to the US, got into college and is now a PhD candidate.
1
-
"Actually the happiness index is a method of testing how content and or
satisfied one is with life, they did it with America and fond that, no
Americans in general are not happy.
"
Again, it is subjective and based on culture. People in N.
Korea are happy. I am sure that the Sentinelese people are very happy
living by themselves on their island. That is why there is no
quantitative way to measure happiness. Those links you gave me I have
seen before. They are vague and foolishly try to group everyone
together as if they are the same. The culture in Norway is different
then in the US. All across the US the culture is different. If I lived
in San Jose and has to wait in traffic 2 hours a day going to and from
work then I would be disgruntle as well. If I lived in rural Nebraska
and fished all the time and worked a low key job, I can be happy. That
person in San Jose, though, could be earning six figures, drive a nice
car, have a beautiful wife, a nice home (the San Jose area is beautiful)
and be very well off. That Nebraska man can be obese, drive a beat up
Chevy, has smelly clothes, a fat wife and so on. It is all subjective.
Now
let us look at happiness and population. You say that Japan has similar
problems. Look at that top 20 list and how many countries has a
population of over 90 million? Ok, to help you out I will list the
populaions
1. 5.1 million
2. 5.67 million
3. 0.33 million
4. 8.2 million
5. 5.4 million
6. 16.9 million
7. 35.85 million
8. 4.6 million
9. 23.78 million
10. 9.8 million
11. 8.38 million
12. 4.81 million
13. 8.61 million
14. 320 million
15. 4.6 million
16. 81.41 million
17. 11.29 million
18. 0.57 million
19. 65.14 million
20. 17.95 million
Are
you seeing a trend? Do you see an outlier? We are also ignoring
population density, geographic locations, history, etc. So many
variables are ignored here. If I lived in Iceland, a country that is an
island of only 330,000 people I would be happy as well. That goes back
to my an in San Jose vs my man in Nebraska comparison. Living a simple
life can lead to happiness and also lack of success. And being stressed
does not equal unhappiness. People enjoy that. I enjoy being stressed
out as when I achieve something it is big. You have to look at that as
well.
"Do you not get it back?"
If I "get it back" then why take it from me to begin with? Does the government feel I am too stupid to spend my money?
"sorry i thought healthcare, education, emergency services,
infrastructure, military, social security workman's comp, and etc. etc.
were things one wanted and enjoyed..."
Most of those things I can
provide myself or the local community can. Again, what does the
government think they can spend my money better then I can in some
cases?
"and since the point of a tax society is everyone pays to cover everyone else, aren't you happy you;re supporting society...?"
It
is impossible to cover everyone. On paper you may say everyone is
covered, but with healthcare if the quality drops and wait times go up
is that a success? Saying "everyone is covered" is lowering the bar a
lot. Take K-12 education. While it is ran by the states on paper every
state offers K-12 education thus on paper everyone receives it, or can
if they want. There are many rural schools that do not have AP courses.
Do those students receive the same quality education as others in the
country? No. But on paper they do. In my state we increased graduate
rates by lowering the standards. On paper we have more people getting a
high school diploma, but again, that is on paper purely by lowering the
standards.
Also, I told you about helping others. I have no
problem helping out my local community of people I interact with often.
I do not want to help out someone in another state 2000 miles away who I
have no clue about their personality, desires, goals, etc.
"again anything else comes off as "support yourself and your own over others" which to me sounds very "anti" society."
And
to me being forced to pay for someone's healthcare who I have no clue
who they are or what their desires are sounds anti-society to me as that
person is living off of others people's hard work and no one is there
to control him.
When I helped out my friends who were homeless I
knew they were working towards a better life. They just fell on hard
times. One was a PhD candidate. If they were not putting forth effort
to do better then I would have kicked them out. I have that control.
With your idea we can just give money to people who have no desire to do
better, and no one is there to control them. On top of that you create
the entitlement attitude. Future generations feel they are entitled
which is not good.
1