Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "New Chart Shows Income Gains Overwhelmingly Going To The 1%" video.

  1. Also, in 1965 the payroll tax was increased as well which will lower wages.
    3
  2. Count Deku, the government should be limited in power because it is the one entity that can create a law making it legal to hold a gun to your head and force you to do things. Private businesses can't do that.
    2
  3. My 2006 Chevy Cobalt is much better than any car from 1967.
    2
  4. "we have more then enough good homes for everyone that's homeless," No we don't.
    2
  5. They are the ones who are actually producing.
    2
  6. Anime Girl, I watch the video and Kyle is simply wrong. A major reason why productivity went up is because of technology. Those that invested in it and created it saw an increase in wages. Look up Skilled Biased Technological Change. Sorry, but Kyle's rant of the evil rich does not hold water.
    2
  7. Susan Weber, you have no clue what insurance is supposed to be. Insurance is there to pay for unplanned, expensive situations. It is not there to pay for everything. And it isn't a program of young, healthy people paying for old, unhealthy people's care. You used car insurance as an example. If you are a bad driving your rate goes up or a company will drop you all together. Car insurance also does not pay for oil changes or new tires, both necessary for a safe, an efficient car. It will pay if someone hits your car. The reason why we have problem with healthcare insurance is because it has become a form of payment to where healthcare insurance has become healthcare when that is not how insurance works. " Educate yourself on the basic principles of insurance " I suggest you do that.
    2
  8. " If production had gone up due to automation then it would stand to reason the wages would've gone done during that time." It many cases they haven't. For example, many goods and services are now better and cheaper. Poor people own smart phones. We are producing more food than ever. "The rate of production would have also skyrocketed after that technology came into use." We have seen that as well.
    2
  9. "And WHO exactly PRODUCED those technologies???" Highly skilled workers. Look up Skilled Biased Technological Change
    2
  10. "It´s funny how you avoid addressing my points in every comment section." I did. You do not know what GDP is.
    2
  11. Bread lines are good according to Bernie.
    1
  12. Geeky_Girl, there is video evidence of Bernie saying breadlines are good.
    1
  13. Harry, politicians are admitting they are being bought out, but we still have problems. Have fun supporting Justice Demcorats you commie.
    1
  14. I still find it funny how the JD's symbol is similar to the Soviet Union's symbol. Comrades think alike.
    1
  15. Harry, Wolf-PAC is a scam. it funds TYT. As Ben Shapiro showed, TYT supports money in politics. They just do so in a different way. As Ben asked, what will Bernie support more? $10,000 or an entire program dedicated to him? Your problem is that you support a larger, centralized government that is corrupt. And by expanding it future leaders will become corrupt. And you will complain when you were the ones who gave it that power. Keep preaching about getting money out of politics. it is never going to happen you commie. Oh, and I call you a commie because you support a communist agenda.
    1
  16. " Shapiro and his childish analogies." Such as? You have to give me an example. "Those two are not the same thing and if you don´t understand why there is really no reason discussing with you. " Which means you don't understand yourself. " If I have a show on Youtube where I support the right to bribe the police, that is the same thing as me physically giving money to a policeman to get out of an arrest? " That is not the same. Giving Bernie Sanders $10,000 to help his campaign is no different than dedicating an entire program giving him free advertising to promote him. TYT can either 1. Give Bernie money to where he can use that money to create commercials and pay people to campaign for him 2. Just give him free advertising and campaign for him on their own show There is no different. Just like there is no difference in someone donating money to a politician they support or donating their time campaigning for them. What Shapiro was showing was that money in politics is not always bad. Say I was a millionaire and I supported a candidate and I gave them $50,000 to help them win and I received nothing back from them personally? How is that any different than someone who supports a candidate and volunteering their time campaigning for them? Nothing.
    1
  17. "The problem is that 1% that reeks in 40% of the nation's wealth." That is not a problem if you understand what wealth is. A home owner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. A home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. Beyond owning a home people have very little wealth. There are also many people in this country with negative wealth because of loans but are fine. I have negative wealth because of my loans, but I have a nice apartment, my own car and three square meals a day. But people with negative wealth leads to that large wealth inequality. So the wealth inequality is not necessarily a bad thing.
    1
  18. PlayerSkillFTW, in the 50s no one paid that high tax rate. In 1967 there were 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 that year that paid $0 in federal income taxes. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 came. Also in the 50s we did not have the expanded payroll tax that we do now.
    1
  19. "We need the payroll tax to have Social Security and Medicare" Why? Why can't it be funded with an income tax? "also in the 1950s the top MARGINAL tax rate was 91% so we need to bring it back" Again, no one paid that rate. There were several rich people who paid $0 in federal income taxes.
    1
  20. "Back when we had a top marginal tax rate of 91% during the FDR and Eisenhower years nobody avoided paying taxes like you say" In 1967 Joseph Barr complained to Congress that there were 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 that years that paid $0 in federal income taxes. That is why the Tax Reform Act of 1969 was created. To get rich people to pay taxes. "Also Social Security and Medicare need to be funded by payroll taxes and not income taxes so they have their funds so they can be safe lol" What is the difference? How are payroll taxes safer? You do know that companies do things to avoid paying payroll taxes, such as give out benefits that are tax free. But how are payroll taxes safer? You need to explain that.
    1
  21. During that time we saw an increase in immigration.
    1
  22. Fuh Que, there are other reasons as well, such as the increase in the payroll tax for example. But when you allow for an increase in immigration and allow many unskilled immigrates into the country, that will drive down wages. "The real reason that Annual increases for the vast majority have stagnated, is the income inequality and the fact that the 'Rich' in this Country buy politicians to affect policy that siphons more wealth into their bank accounts, at the expense of the rest of this Country." Correlation vs causation? Why can you cry it but not me?
    1
  23. Kevin Allen, low skilled immigrants are taking low wage jobs at a lower wage which brings down the average. It does not raise wages. It keeps other unemployed. "And the U.S. currently has effectively regressive taxes," The top 10% pay around 70% of federal income taxes while earning only around 40% of the income. That is not a regressive tax. "with the wealthy paying much less percentage wise than the middle class by an order of magnitude. " Depends on what you look at. Our tax code is complicated as there are many different kinds of taxes. "We aren't even at a flat tax system yet, so unless you are going to advocate for the wealthy paying a lower percentage of their income than the poor, you have no reason to complain about the rich getting taxed a bit more." In reality I support one federal tax, that is a tax on the states.
    1
  24. Kevin, also with more immigrants that means a larger supply of workers to choose from which lowers the price which is what a wage is, a price for labor.
    1
  25. "The difference between my argument and yours, is that statistics and common sense support my statement. " Well you haven't given me any statistics. Also, saying "common sense", to me, means you do not have an argument. If it is "common sense" then there will be no argument. However there is. People get PhDs discussion topics like these. "You acknowledged it has a statistical impact, whereas Illegal Immigration, if there is any effect at all, is negligible at best." I never said illegal immigrants. I said immigration. Why do you suddenly assume illegal immigration? "Then again, I guess it's easier to preserve your disdain towards Immigrants than it is to acknowledge that they aren't the root cause of all of Americas problems." I never said they were the root cause to the problem. I feel the root cause is the lack of following the Constitution and the expansion of the federal government. However, uncontrolled immigration does play a role. Or immigration in general will change society in many ways. Whether it is good or bad is another topic. But to say that immigration does not change society is simply ignorant. To me one way it did change was lowering the average wage. Again, not saying that is good or bad, just saying that is what happened.
    1
  26. "Kyle Kulinski is correct period" Well how can I argue with that?
    1
  27. "You made a claim that immigrants were a contributor of wage depression though. If you make a positive claim you need to cite with empirical primary sources how it does so. " Put it this way. Kyle and none of his viewers hardly do that. But you are so quick to give him a pass. Here is a chart on immigration by year. http://www.immigrationeis.org/sites/default/files/images/charts/immigration_into_us_1.gif "What caused wage depression from the 70s to now wasn't just a change of heart from capitalists to siphon more wealth, it was that women started entering the workplace " Increase women in the workplace also increased supply which lowers prices. I agree. "and computerization of certain functions within the private and public sectors." I do not buy that. New technology means newer jobs that just require different skills. Also, new technology means goods and services are better and cheaper which will offset any low wage. "Unemployment is useful in capitalism because you can interchangeably hire laborer after laborer without them demanding pay raises or shares of the profit." Not so. Your view on capitalism is rather weak. If you have a lot of unemployed workers who were able to work a rival company can hire them and become more powerful. In a free market unemployment will be low. "The constitution will say whatever the judges say it does. And those judges protect capital interests before and over the spirit of the law or justice." That really sounds like some Alex Jones conspiracy. How about you cite that with an empirical study.
    1
  28. Harry, Kyle showed two charts where one the y-axis was poorly labeled. If you read one of my comments I addressed both charts and how deceptive they can be. Anyone can show charts and facts. When you do so in a vague and misleading way it does not mean anything. To those that buy into it means they are an idiot. So, Harry, not to be rude, but you are an idiot. How about you question a few thing in life comrade.
    1
  29. Harry, the channel Learn Liberty shows plenty of charts and facts. How about you look at some of their videos. Their videos will disagree with what Kyle is saying. So who's right?
    1
  30. Harry, look up the Learn Liberty video entitled "The Real "Truth About the Economy:" Have Wages Stagnated?" At this point I would love to hear your response.
    1
  31. Fuh Que, is income inequality a major problem in this country? You have to ask yourself why does it exist to begin with? There are many factors to consider. Also, you have to consider is it even bad to begin with? "Corruption within our Government is a MASSIVE problem that has been plaguing this Country for several decades. " I agree. But that is a symptom of a disease. That disease is of a federal government with too much power. Limit the power of the federal government and corruption is alleviated. There is a desire to have government. But we have to control government. You do that by keeping it as local as possible. "Corrupted, while, as the statistics in this video show, the rest have not seen consistent growth" That statistic does not show anything about corruption in government. Stop listening to Kyle, he is a fool. "When wealth is disproportionately being siphoned to the top 10%," Please, I beg of you, learn what wealth is. Wealth and income are different. In reality, wealth inequality in a country is good. How? In a wealthy country people can afford to go into debt before going forward. I have negative wealth. A homeless bum with no debt has more wealth than me. But our society allows me to have negative wealth and move forward later. Pointing out wealth inequality is not an argument unless you know what wealth is. "Again, the answer should be common sense" It isn't "common sense". As I said, people with PhDs argue over this. "Any objective, unbiased research will lead you to the same conclusion." Such as? At this point you are falling apart. I just showed you how wealth inequality is not necessarily bad. For example, you can look at my life in two different ways. I have negative with with college loans. You may view that as bad. However, I have my own apartment, a reliable car, I am a PhD candidate, and I am healthy. So I am well off. Our society is so well off we can allow people like me to regress in terms of wealth and then later do better. That contributes to the wealth inequality. Please learn the difference between wealth and income.
    1
  32. "Yes......It is bad. " Why? Why is it bad if someone is vastly richer than me? If I am doing well than so what? I earn $23,000 a year. I have my own car, my own apartment, I am a PhD candidate. I am doing well in that regards if you completely ignore my income. People who complain about income inequality are, for the most part, jealous. You also have to consider that maybe they are rich because they grew society. For example, the CEO of Walmart 20 to 30 years ago earned more per employee than the CEO of Walmart does now. What that means is that while the CEO of Walmart earns a lot, they are also hiring more. For example, a CEO of a company that has 1000 employees could have earned $1,000,000 (keeping simple numbers). Years later they could have 10,0000 employees and now earn $5,000,000. Sure, that CEO saw their salary go up by 500%. But they hire 1000% more employees. is that bad? More people have jobs. More wealth is being created to go around. So once again, is it bad? Another example. If I were to create a new drug that cured diabetes I could earn millions. I will contribute to that income inequality. However, in doing so many people have a problem that is fixed and they can become more productive. Again, is that bad? " The Government has ALWAYS been the most powerful entity in the Country" That is not true at all. In reality the federal government had limits listed in the Constitution. The Constitution was there to limit government and in many ways it still does. For example, that is why states run their own education systems. That is why the military cannot enforce state law without consent of the state's legislature. This country was designed to have limited government. "This talking point of minimizing Government and reducing/ridding Corporate interests of their Regulations, has happened before. Maybe you've heard about the 2 major instances of Governmental deregulation of the Corporate sector: The Great Depression and The Great Recession?" The Great Depression and Great Recession were times of government growth where the government grew in spending. During the Great Recession we had many regulations, the regulations just favored the banks such as the bailouts. That is a regulation. You fear these businesses when all a business can do is offer you a job and/or a product. They can't do anything. Government can though. During the recession the banks got bigger. That was not due to lack of regulations. That was due to the government. Bernie Sanders talks about breaking up the big banks. The free market did that. It was government that held them together. " The level of Power our Government possesses, isn't the problem. " Yes it is, because when you can't control it than it becomes corrupt. There is a desire to have government, but we have to keep it as local as possible to control it. That is why the Constitution was created to limit government as government has the actual power to oppress you. "I didn't say that because Kyle also happens to believe it, again, common sense dictates it to be the Truth. " Again, it is not "common sense" as there is an argument that is done by scholars. " Federal Minimum wage, while working FULL TIME, still lands people below the Poverty line." Less than 2% of min. wage workers work full time. Most are part time. And the vast majority of those earning $9.50/hr or less are not poor. https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/Sabia_Burkhauser_SEJ_Jan10.pdf " Anyways, who benefits the most from Minimum Wage NOT being increased?" The poor, such as teens from poor neighborhoods, particularly black teens. Raising the min. wage prices them out of the market. " Increasing the MInimum wage and tying it inflation will not only incentivise Corporations to NOT increase prices, but it will quite literally put MORE money into the Economy." More money in the economy does not mean more wealth will be in the economy. Money is worthless until it is given value by creating wealth. More money in the economy does not mean more wealth. Thus prices will go up. Even at that, Christina Romer said that if we had a $9.50/hr min. wage it will, at best, grow the economy by $20 billion. That is only a growth of 0.1%. Again, at best. "Also, how about the fact that we spend nearly $200 Billion on Corporate Subsidies (welfare) on corporations that, for the most part, Don't need it," I don't agree with the subsidies. But that is another government regulations. If you want the federal government to offer you healthcare and and education you are going to have to live with them giving corporations subsidies. I want to strip the federal government of that power and give that power to the states and local government and thus the people. " and increasing the Minimum Wage and Tying it to inflation" You can't tie the min. wage to inflation because not everything inflates. "Plenty of Scientists also claim that Global Warming doesn't exist," That is not related on this issue but to break that down for you every scientists knows that climate change is happening. What they disagree on is 1. how much is man playing a role 2. is it even bad When you listen to these climate change fear mongerers like Kyle none of them can get an actual scientist on their show nor do they cite any scientist. That is because when you read the literature you will see that none of the scientists are saying it is a major threat to our planet. BTW, I am a scientist myself. "Because Income leads to Wealth" Production leads to wealth. You do not need income to generate wealth.
    1
  33. "First, if you want to maintain this discussion, don't engage in fallacious tactics. Claiming I in any way said it's bad that someone is richer than ANYONE, and creating an argument against that point, is the definition of a Straw Man. " You said that income inequality was bad. " The difference between what we are discussing, is to which DEGREE, is it acceptable. If the top 20 positions in a Company are paying their employees shit wages that land them below the poverty line simply so they can siphon more profits into their own bank accounts, THAT is where the problem arises." Ever thought they can't afford higher wage? "Currently, an estimated 45 million people are living in poverty in America." Which is better off compared to other countries. Also, how many of those simply don't have a job to begin with? "Say a CEO employs 1,000 at minimum wage, 20 years ago, and made $1,000,000 in annual income. 20 years later, he employs 10,000 at minimum wage, and has an annual income of $60,000,000. He employs more people, so isn't it a great situation overall? " It depends. Say they expanded their company with technology and they create a product that is now cheaper and better for the consumer. Society still benefits. That is comparable to my other example of me curing diabetes and becoming rich in doing so. "Without taking into consideration that Minimum Wage WHILE working full time, lands people below the Poverty Line" Most people earning the min. wage are not poor nor do they work full time. "I agree with how the Government responded to the Great Recession. But again, I'm talking about what CAUSED the Great Recession and Great Depression. " Recession happen. It is a part of economic growth. Ethiopia has not faced a major recession in over 25 years. Is that the economic model you want to follow? "Please, explain to me how Government spending resulted in those crashes." Never said they did. I said it hindered recovery. Recessions happen in a growing economy. How we recover is key. When left alone the economy, historically, recovers quickly. " Using your argument, you would have to completely strip ALL power from ALL Government entities (Local and National) in order to end the corruption" Not true. The more local government is the more control the people have over it. If your local government becomes corrupt you can rally to vote it out or move and still be a US citizen. " In which case, the corrupting isn't needed, as Corporate Interests would have full control to begin with." All a corporation can do is offer you a job and/or a product. For how evil Walmart is they have never held a gun to my head and forced me to do anything. "If Federal control was dropped in favor of local control, the Local Governance would simply be the primary target of Corrupting influences. (Local Governments are already being corrupted, but Federal control is the Primary target.) So your solution isn't even a solution at all. " Yes it is. I personally met both candidates for mayor. I know what goes on in my city and state. I am involved. Become involved. That is your problem. You are complaining but not acting.
    1
  34. "That is simply not true. According to the BLS, out of ALL full time employees (Regardless of Wage) 2% make Minimum wage. Claiming only 2% of minimum wage workers (exclusively) are full time, is complete bullshit. " Still, few workers are working full time on min. wage. "Lol? They are ALREADY priced out of the Market. Raising the minimum wage to the cost of living and tying it to inflation, literally, guarantees that NOBODY will be priced out of the market." Ok, what? Raise the price of gas to $10/gal. Will gas sales go up or down? Double the price of rent. Will more people rent? It is called basic economics. You raise the price of something less people will buy it. "It is a Government regulation...because, get this....The Corporations who receive the Subsidies, lobbied to get them. Again, Corruption is the root cause. " Nope, the government having the power that can be bought is the cause. "You tie it to the inflation of necessities, also known as products that effect the 'Cost of Living' (Groceries, Housing, utilities, etc.)." A lot of things influence cost of living. So someone with a roommate who can walk to work should earn a lower wage compared to someone living alone that has to drive? "I was using it as an example of how fallacious your reasoning is. And yes, NOW most Scientists accept global warming, because the ones who denied it, realized the evidence/public opinion was against them." Not true. Again, I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. They have said climate change is happening. " Look at Global CO2 emissions from before the first Industrial Revolution, through the First and 2nd industrial Revolution and the 'Great Expansion' of the 1950's, and it's stunningly obvious that Human involvement has been drastic" 100 years of data is minute in a 4.6 billion year old earth. Or are you a young earth theorist? "The simple fact that you claim to be a scientist is only an attempt to make an 'Appeal to Authority' and nothing else. " No, it means I understand how scientists think. Just like you trust 100 years of data in a 4.6 billion year old earth. I understand the magnitude of numbers and data. "Production leads to income for the people producing and selling the Product. Incomes (Or Wealth earned from a previous Income) are needed to purchase and create products that can potentially increase ones overall Wealth..please explain what you are attempting to say." If the wealth does not exist you cannot buy it. More wealth means lower prices. You do not necessarily need more income. I am explaining economics to you. However, considering how you do not understand that when prices go up less will be bought, it is going to be difficult.
    1
  35. Fuh Que, this is from you, "Are you attempting to claim that Income inequality is not a major problem in this Country at the moment or that it is not the primary reason that the majority of the Population has seen stagnated growth in regards to Annual Average income? " Also ""Also, you have to consider is it even bad to begin with? " Yes......It is bad. " Also "Please, do explain how Income Inequality is in any way good." All from you. Those are your words.
    1
  36. Assassin of Darkness, so you rather live in a bubble?
    1
  37. TheUltimateBeing01, you increase the supply of workers which means the price drops. Supply and demand.
    1
  38. Niklas, productivity is up because of technology. Not because people are working harder.
    1
  39. TheUltimateBeing01 Higher supply means lower prices. Econ 101
    1
  40. If you compared the pay of Walmar's CEO around 20 to 30 years ago per employee to now you will see that it has actually dropped. That means the current CEO of walmart is earning less now per employee than it was a couple decades ago. A reason why we see a trend like what Kyle is showing is because say you have a company that employs 1000 and the CEO is paid $1,000,000 (keeping numbers simple). Now that same company may employ 10,0000 and that CEO earns $5,000,000. So while the CEO saw their salary go up by 500%, they employ 1000% more people. Not saying the current trend is all great, but you can't say it is all bad.
    1
  41. Gabriel, a couple things. One, CWG90 is right. Do we just allow the homeless to break in those homes? Next, many of those homes are unlivable. People talking about buying a home in Detroit for the price of a VCR. But the reality is those homes are a wreck.
    1
  42. John, in order for socialism to work like the leftists want in a country of 320+ million people people cannot be different. We all have to think the same and act the same. We can't have diversity. With diversity economies differ in certain areas making it hard to cater to them without hurting others.
    1
  43. Gaberial, name me one country that has implemented centralized socialism successfully with a population of over 100 million people.
    1
  44. Richard Wolff confused wealth and income. He is not really the best economist to go to for advise.
    1
  45. Bane, http://www.rdwolff.com/beyond_the_minimum_wage_debate " For example, the US federal minimum wage today is $7.25 per hour, down from $8.68 per hour, its historical high in 1968 (measured in 2016 dollars). Across the last half-century, as the wealth produced in the US grew dramatically, cutting the real minimum wage 16 percent contributed significantly to the nation's growing inequality of wealth and income." A couple things. One, the min. wage is a minute portion of the economy. The fact that it is supposedly worth less now than 1968 is deceptive as there is a lot to it. However, it is not the reason why we have seen wealth and income inequality. In this case he is talking about income (the min. wage) but than compared it to wealth. That is where he are getting the two terms wrong. People who work low wage jobs typically do not have much invested in terms of wealth. Thus they will always have essentially zero wealth. Also, there are many other factors that have contributed to those occurrences.
    1
  46. Niklas, it is funny how you do not understand basic economics.
    1
  47. Dan Ryan, other modern nations have problems with their healthcare systems. They are not the best. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf There are many advantages to a private system. Problem is that we do not have a free market system.
    1
  48. "Wages have stagnated, did you read all of my comment? " I did. " My point was if tech has caused this supposed boom in production wages wouldn't shot down" Why? "meaning that workers aren't getting paid fairly from their production." They are depending on how you look at it. Several goods and services are better and cheaper. Such as cars, cell phones, computers, etc. Also, those that invested and work with that technology have seen an increase in wages. It is called Skilled Biased Technological Change. Anyway, there is more to it than technology. "No, the rate of production slowly increased." No true. Look at GDP growth, it has been exponential. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP Also, look up the "Hockey Stick of Human Prosperity"
    1
  49. Dan Ryan, our healthcare system does many things well. To say that ours is worst is simply not true.
    1
  50. "We have good medical personnel and treatments but the cost and coverage of the population is the worst among developed nations. " The cost is bad, I agree. But the coverage is the same as other countries ration their care. " In other countries medical bankruptcy, denial of people with pre-existing conditions and tens of millions of people with no medical coverage are not things that exist." They ration their care. " I know from previous posts that you are a Christian " I am not and have never said anything that would suggest that. Even at that, bringing religion in this is meaningless as I will never push for a law based on religion. "What if you had a child born with a pre-existing condition? " You are trying to appeal to emotions now which does not work with me. While I may be devastated, in the end my child would be one in millions of people in this country. They die the world moves on. It would be great to help everyone, but the reality is that is not possible with our current resources. No country helps everyone. In the UK a child was sentenced to death because they were considered too ill to care for. With you appealing to emotions you have basically lost this argument. There is an emotional side to it, and I agree with it. I would support a local public option. But never a federal one. You are looking past the economics of it as well. Pushing for a centralized system by only appealing to emotions is ignoring the other side's argument. That being 1. the economics of it 2. the idea of letting the federal government run healthcare would be a disaster I see the advantages of government being involved in healthcare, I really do. But you have to realize that with healthcare we simply lack resources. Every nation does. So it is impossible to cover everyone. And allowing our disorganized federal government to run it is not the best option. Do not let your emotions get in the way of reasoning.
    1
  51. "No, asking what if you had a child with pre existing conditions is not an emotional argument but a practical one." It is an emotional argument. " Problem is that right wingers can not fathom how policies affect people until it happens to them." Same can be said about leftists. "If you want to see an emotional argument look no further than Ben Shapiro´s "the government are holding a gun to my wife´s head" argument." He has a legit point. Someone has to provide healthcare if you are going to promise it to people. Compare it to this. 1. The government says you have a right to a trial with a jury of your peers. If you are called to jury duty and refuse you go to jail. 2. The government can build an army. If you are drafted and refuse to serve you go to jail. Those are two cases where the government can force you to do something. Here is another case. After the Brown vs Board decision the federal government sent down the military to force schools to allow black people in them. They had the military, with guns there forcing schools to integrate. "No, countries with universal healthcare does not ration their care" Even Bernie Sanders admits they do. "Cancer patients are not denied care " The US has the highest cancer survival rate in the US. "And countering the fact that people don´t go into medical bankruptcy in other parts of the developed world " They just die waiting or have their condition worsen. But again, even Bernie Sanders admits they ration their care.
    1
  52. Dan Ryan, Niklas Hansen does not understand GDP. However, I addressed all of his arguments. I will do the same for you. "There seem to be unlimited resources for the military to bomb other countries that have done nothing to us " Defense spending is around 4% of GDP. The federal government spends more on healthcare than defense. Also, we do not spend a lot of resources to "bomb other countries". If we kept doing that there will be nothing left to bomb. And comparing healthcare to defense is ignorant. The resources are different. We lack doctors, surgeons, nurses, researchers, etc. All of which takes years of schooling and training to become one. The equipment in healthcare is expensive. "The federal government would not RUN healthcare, only pay for it, stop with that tired old argument." And then the healthcare industry, with the new demand, will just raise prices much like universities did with the student loan program. "But worst of all is your callous comment about your child dying for lack of coverage and the world moves on, we don't have money to help that child so sad day for you." Again, it isn't about money. It is lack of resources. Throwing more money at something does not increase the number of doctors in the system. Tell me, how is throwing more money at a system increase the number of doctors? Please explain that to me.
    1
  53. "The child in Great Britain was not "condemned to death" because of inadequate resources but because there is no existing treatment for his condition. All the money in the world can't help that." And all the money in the world is not going to increase the number of doctors and surgeons and researchers in the healthcare industry. That is the point. You just made the exact same argument I have been making meaning you support my case. You have this false idea that there is plenty of healthcare out there and all we need to do is spend money and people can obtain it. That is not the case. The fact is that we lack supply of healthcare. Spending more money on it and increasing demand will just raise prices.
    1
  54. " Haha I know you´re pissed that I destroyed your BS argument of spending as % of GDP on another video (which you didn´t reply to)" It was this video. And I replied to it. For me it is right above this comment. "where implied that military spending should rise with population rates." In terms of dollars yes. Just like healthcare, education, research and other government spending. The population grows the economy grows. That is why you have to look at percent GDP. In terms of percent GDP defense spending has been dropping for decades. "But this here has nothing to do with that, so get over yourself. " I am showing how you do not understand basic economics. "Yeah, that "emotional argument" that is the reality for millions of people. " Everyone faces problems. Should the government cater to everyone's problems? How far are you willing to go with that. I have a history of mental illness in my family. Should the government cater to that? There are people out there who are anti-social and simply are not attractive and can't get laid, should the government cater to that? You are bringing up arbitrary problems and say that the government should cater to those, but not others. And you somehow feel that the government has the ability to do it. As the example I gave on that UK child who was basically sentenced to death by the UK government. Another person said in this comment thread that the resources did not exist. And that is my point. We have a limited supply of resources in healthcare. If I had a kid with a pre-existing condition the reality is that resources are limited. " The government collects taxes from you to fund the military too which you think is too small. " I never said it was too small. I said the spending was decreasing relative to the size of the economy. " I never see you guys claiming that the government is "holding a gun to your head" on that issue though." I never made a claim about holding a gun to my head. The military is constitutional and that is where I base my ideas on the powers of government. "And it´s clear you don´t know how healthcare works. Yes, the U.S has high cancer survival rates (and high child mortality rates) which is based on those that actually get care which is a pipe dream for many people. " It is based on all cancer patients. The majority of the country receives care. "Sure (no they don´t)....and how many people have died or had their condition worsened while waiting for an insurance company to decide your life is worth saving?" According to numbers thrown out by leftists, around 0.01% of the population A similar amount that die on the roads in car accidents every year. So should we ban driving? "Another emotional argument huh? " No , it's reality. We lack resources. We have a waiting list for organs. But according to you there are plenty of organs sitting in the freezer and all it takes is the government paying more of our tax dollars for them to be released.
    1
  55. "Pink. Exactly, government spending on education etc goes up as population increases." I agree, because the entire GDP goes up. "And I have already showed you that spending in dollars has increased though spending as % of GDP has gone down" Yes, as a percent of GDP defense spending has been going down. That means that even though we have more people and a larger economy, the relative spending in defense is less. "And what about the fact that the economy is 7 times larger now when spending on social programs has increased? " GDP always increases. You said so yourself. Population goes up and so does GDP. Correlation does not equal causation. How would have the GDP increased without those programs? To me it would have gone up faster. "Cool story from a supply side economics guy..." Many people with doctorates in economics support supply side economics. "Well no shit! And your slippery slope argument means nothing since the whole history of government has been about determining degrees of intervention and rates" Which is why I support a limited government. " Stupid Shapiro arguments doesn´t hold water. >If we let the government have a military will we then allow them to bomb your house!!!!???? If the government has taxes will they then take all of your money!!!????< . Childish. " The military cannot bomb your home legally. Also, if they did that is why we have a 2nd amendment. It is also why we have states which separates the power. "True, but you did call people who argue that the military is too big crazy. " I never said they were crazy. I was saying they were incorrect in their comparisons. "Purposely missing the point. If government levying taxes for healthcare is "holding a gun to our head", then how is not the government doing the same for the military "holding a gun to your head"?." My idea is based on a standard. What is your standard? Why not allow the federal government to control the entire economy? I have a standard on why I support what I do. You don't. "Yeah and the people being affected by murder is probably similar, should we legalize murder? " Not comparable. Murder is illegal to deter people from doing it. We made driving legal which leads to 35,000 deaths a year. If we made driving illegal there will be less deaths because of car accidents. Just like we made murder illegal led to less deaths because of murders.
    1
  56. A few things on that first chart. 1. In the 70s we started an increase in immigration that led to more lower skilled workers entering the workforce 2. Prior to that 70s we saw the expansion of the payroll tax in the mid 60s 3. With increase technology many goods and services have become better and cheaper. For example, a car today is much better a car in the 70s. On the second chart a few things to consider 1. The y-axis is poorly labeled. "Real average annual growth" of what? Wealth? Income? The two are vastly different. 2. 1.5% of what? Saying a percent of something but not stating of what amount means a lot. If you have a share of something and start with 10% and after a few decades you only have 5%, you may say you are worse off. But say you started out with 10% of 100 but now have 5% of 1,000,000? You have to consider that 3. Consider these number. Federal government spending as percent of GDP Prior to FDR: 7% After WWII: 14% Now: 20% Defense spending as percent of GDP 1950s: 10% Now: 4%. The federal government has been growing and we are expanding the socialism the left wants. And this is happening.
    1
  57. 1. Yes it does. You increase the supply of workers you decrease the price. The increase the supply of anything you decrease the price. That is econ 101 2. So you are going to take Kyle's word on it? Why? 3. "Also did it ever occur to you that after world war 2 the government had no money???????" So they increase spending? "Because that was why there was a 90 percent tax rate on large businesses and the rich to begin with" That the rich did not pay. In 1967 there were 155 Americans who earned over $200,000 that paid $0 in federal taxes. Also, the amount of taxes collected in terms of percent of GDP has been similar for decades https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S "People want those rates back " So they voted for a party who supports cutting taxes?
    1
  58. "The reason federal spending is out of control is due to the massive debt accumulated by Bush" What? How do you account for the increase from the 1950s to before Bush? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S "and healthcare in this country costing more and having worse outcomes then any other developed nation" That is not necessarily true. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf "since insurance companies take a cut of basically every dollar spent on healthcare, and the free market simply doesn't work for healthcare by both its very nature and the fact that hospitals can set arbitrary prices that you can't see before you buy" We haven't had a free market system in healthcare in at least 50 years. We have many government barriers like the payroll tax for example. "And a social safety net is NOT socialism," At the federal level it is. "If there were no welfare state, there would be a violent revolution. " Not necessarily. What you said is based off of nothing. "Lobbying vastly over represents wealthy interests, and labor unions have been in decline for years. " Labor unions are a large contributor to political donations. But lobbying will not be an issue of the federal government had limited power. With limited power it has nothing to sell. "Defense spending was 3% of GDP in 2000, and the deficit has gone down since 2010. All these numbers are oversimplifications." Not really. It is a sign of how the federal government is growing and has been growing for decades. The social programs the leftists support have been growing but yet we are seeing some of these problems, such as money in politics. Expanding them is not the solution. Also, saying the deficit went down in 2010 is deceptive as Obama and the democrats expanding spending. They wanted another bailout but republicans took over congress in 2010.
    1
  59. Nutcase, 1. It is called basic economics. When you increase the supply of something the demand goes down. https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/supply-demand-equilibrium 2. How does history back up Kyle's point? Gives me some examples. 3. What? Right now the left is saying that taxes are too low on the rich. However, the revenue, in terms of percent of GDP, is the same as when the taxes were supposedly high. So what is it? 4. The did not pay that as there were many write offs and the IRS, due to lack of technology, was not as sophisticated as they are now. " Those taxes were collected off the rich then invested on the common working man, in the form of funding of education, enviornmental protections to ensure people had a livable place in spite of our impact on the enviornment, " The federal department of education did not exist until the late 70s. 84% of funding for education is state and local. And the EPA did not exist until the 70s. Both the Department of Ed. and the EPA came after the Tax Reform Act of 1969.
    1
  60. "You keep mentioning the payroll tax, which is one of those taxes that is actually regressive. That's the sort of thing I was talking about for regressive taxes. " If you want to remove the payroll tax then I agree as it is regressive. It has caused many problems such as healthcare insurance being healthcare and people not being able to choose their own healthcare insurance. "If we have a federal government that collects spending and spends money on it's citizens, it's socialism? You don't understand what that word means. A socialist society by definition has no personal ownership of private property like factories or other means of production. Just throwing some wealth redistribution on capitalism isn't the same thing." Clearly you do not understand what wealth means as wealth does not equal income. So it goes both ways. Are we a completely socialist society? No. But we are far from free market. "The biggest issue with complaining about the federal government specifically, is that it just pushes the argument back to the states. Is the welfare state also bad when a state does it? Is it not socialism anymore?" The more local government is the easier it is for the people to control. Milton Friedman even said there is a desire to have government, as long as it remains the servants and not the masters. You do that by keeping as local as possible because in doing so you can personally see if your tax dollars are being spent well and you can see if politicians are working in your best interest. If you look at the design of this country that is how it was designed. The federal government was there to serve the states, not the people. The states managed the federal government. The states served the people where the people managed the states. Too much government is just as bad as no government. Too much government is one that is big that the people cannot control. You can control a local government much easier than a large, centralized one. "Money in politics is not just a federal problem. If you eliminate the federal government, state representatives are still easily bought out. Money in politics is going to be a thing as long as money=speech. Limiting government can itself be a goal of lobbyists." At the local level you can control government easier. And if a state or city government does not function well you can either 1. Go to local meetings and demand a change 2. Rally to vote them out as your vote has more power 3. Move to another state and still be a US citizen "Private sector labor union membership is actually the lowest its been since 1932, " I have not problem with unions as long as they do not corrupt government. The problem is that they also have corrupted government. Unions are great as there are situations of large companies that will just fire people without reason. When you have a large company of hundreds of thousands of employees they can fire someone and no one will notice. Giving workers protection is great in that case. However, when they corrupt government that becomes a problem. "Public and private combined has been cut in half since 1983" Public unions should not exist as it is legalized money laundering. Public workers are there to serve us. "You underestimate how many people rely on things like Disability, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid," Rely? More like under the strict rule of the federal government. That is the problem. The fact that the simple idea of removing those programs will lead to a revolt means the government has us under control. Now you have politicians saying "vote for me or you will lose your social security". Think about that? That politician is there to serve us. However, we are serving him now. We are giving him a job where he can have great influence in our lives out of the threat of us losing our social security. This is not to say that state welfare programs are all bad. But you have to consider who is controlling who. "Which is it? Are taxes too high, or spending? If the deficit has decreased, one of them must have decreased. Unless the economy is good enough, which makes the whole "taxes are what kill the economy" claim bullshit anyway." There is more to it than that. To me taxes are too complicated. I support a tax on the states at the federal level. And spending is too high. Cut a lot of federal programs and give them to the states. Another advantage of state ran programs is that they can be micromanaged easier.
    1
  61. RandonGuy7092, how liberal of you. I am glad to see that the left continues to be the party of violence.
    1
  62. Niklas Hansen, spending as a percent of GDP tells the vast majority of the story. The GDP is the economy. The fact that the federal government is having a larger influence in the economy says something. " Spending in dollars (adjusted for inflation) is much larger now. " "GDP is about 7 times larger now than it was in the 50´s." EXACTLY!. That is the point. The GDP is larger, thus spending, in terms of dollars, will go up. But what is spending in way of percent GDP? That is the key. As we have seen defense spending is dropping.
    1
  63. "You make no sense. What point are you even making? I showed that military spending is much larger now in real dollars and your point of spending as % of GDP means nothing " Because you are wrong. I earn $23,000 a year. That is poor in today's dollars. But in the early 1900s that was a lot. Yes, more money is being spent in defense. And more money is being spent in research, healthcare, education, buying cars, buying a door, buying a meal, etc. That is why you look at percent GDP. The GDP in 1950 was around $400 billion. Now it is around $18 trillion. The GDP is higher, so of course more money is being spent on defense in terms of real dollars. "Hell, if you are being consistent, you would then conclude that government spending increasing is a good thing since the GDP has increased seven fold since social programs were implemented." GDP was increasing to begin with. Not to be rude but you clearly do not understand economics. "Does population increase and correlated GDP increase warrant an equal increase in military spending and why?" Defense spending has been dropping. In 1950 it was 10% of GDP, now it is 4% of GDP. Your question is bad at the beginning because defense spending is not increasing.
    1
  64. " Does population increase and correlated GDP increase warrant an equal increase in military spending and why?" And once again you are not understanding the economics of it. In terms of dollars yes, more people mean a larger military. Just like we need more food, homes, water pipes, schools, etc. You have to defend more people. However, relative to GDP defense spending has been going down. Tell me this, if we have more people do we need more food? Do we need more homes? Do we need more schools? You also have to consider that the military of other countries are becoming larger as well because they have more people.
    1
  65. " I showed that military spending is much larger now in real dollars and your point of spending as % of GDP means nothing" It means a lot because you have to compare it to something. GDP is the entire economy. Defense spending relative to the entire economy is dropping. Compare it to life expectancy. Someone who is 50 now is not old when the life expectancy is 79 years. However, in the 1800s that would be old as the life expectancy was around 50 years old. Compare it also to this. I pay $600 a month for rent. In 1892 rent was $10 a week in NYC. I am paying more money in rent. But the overall economy is much larger. You really need to study some economics. Learn what GDP is.
    1
  66. Niklas, you are lost on the issue. The US has over twice as many people today as it did in 1950. GDP aside, does it not make sense to expand the defense budget in some ways? You are defending more people.
    1