Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "GOP Proposes Bill To Cut Middle-Class Pay 3.2% By Gutting Unions" video.

Unions have been known to be job killers. Also, the idea that non-union jobs are paid less is deceptive. One, right to work states typically have lower cost of living. Also, non-union jobs are lower skilled and have a larger portion of low skilled temporary workers. I don't necessarily support this as I support state rights, but what Kyle is saying with his numbers is presented incorrectly.
6
Derek, I agree. Unions can have some benefits, but they have many flaws. The union job my dad works at does not allow any temp workers at all which is a job killer for students and those looking for part time work and extra income. They usually make up for it by offering lots of OT. So while the OT is great as my dad makes bank, it does kill a lot of job opportunities. And I also agree, my highest paying job was not unionized.
3
"Unions are things stopping people having to work 16 hours a day with no breaks, 7 days a week with no holidays." Actually the free market does that. Some of the most successful people in society hardly take days off.
3
Willie, unions work for people who have been in the job for a long time. It is like professors with tenure, they have been in a place for a long time and they just sit there and collect a paycheck. For everyone else unions suck.
2
TheIbdeathskull, temp jobs are there for grunt work. The battery factory had temps do minute tasks such as breaking down boxes. In the warehouse I worked at I had more responsibilities but was limited in what I can do. "The best solution would be to train the skilled employees to be efficient with current technology " It is hard to train workers in their 40s.
2
John, rent is included in cost along with property taxes.
1
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/28/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-says-unemployment-lower-right-work-st/ Now there are several reasons for overall unemployment, but that also holds true for income and wages. So if you want to make a vague conclusion then you have to do so on the other way as well. " It's a question of "Is being denied basic services by tax cuts actually a lower cost of living?"" Define "basic services". " Fascinatingly, all 'right to work' states economies are being propped up by federal funding" Not necessarily true. Overall the entire issue is complex so to say that in right to work states people earn less is a vague statement that leaves out numerous variables.
1
Hobo, I have criticized republicans numerous times. As a moderate the issue is that right now democrats, and the left in general is too extreme in my case. I was a Bill Clinton supporter in the past, the last good democrat.
1
"That does not sound like a flaw. Paying skilled workers overtime rather than forcing them to train their replacements seems to make sense." They are not really training a replacement. Temp workers are exactly what it says, temporary. I was one at Amazon warehouse during the summer break and Xmas season. People were at the battery plant in my hometown, mainly college students. It is good supplemental income for some and an opportunity for others. Like the min. wage, those jobs are good starter job and/or supplemental income. When you raise it you hurt opportunities and usually that hurts poor people.
1
Rick, I will respond to you but please separate these out in paragraphs first.
1
atletico, those are my thoughts exactly.
1
Mingchao, the US is highly developed because of the free market. We have kids living with their parents longer, going to college, starting careers and family longer and so on. The whole children in sweatshop is a non issue.
1
Jeremy, define a "poor" state. While WV is near the bottom in income per capita, it is also number one in home ownership rate.
1
John, over 30% of people do not own the home they live in, that is why I mentioned rent. Also, I am a moderate that look at the entire situation before I judge, and in the end I support the Constitution. You don't have a right to someone's services and property. That is why you don't have a right to healthcare. In other countries they don't consider it a right, they just fund it by the government. Big difference.
1
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/29/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-us-only-major-country-doesnt-guaran/
1
You did the exact same thing. You are also ruling out several other variables. For example, on some of those countries you have to serve in the military. Do you want to do that? But, this discussion has gone far enough, time for the big guns https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book, it is very informative.
1
Jeremy, they are "reluctant" to go to war because the US does babysit the rest of the world. Even at that they are still active in the military in international affairs. http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_european_countries_edge_towards_war_on_terror4015
1
Jeremy, that 37th ranking is from the WHO which has been called out for being so flawed that they no longer do rankings. That ranking ranks countries like Malta to the US. The US has cities larger than Malta. In fact every US state is larger than Malta. Also, you should read that book, but I guess it is easier to go off of a ranking that refuses to do anymore rankings.
1
John, that book was written by two professors and has several citations from peer reviewed journals. How about you open your myopic little eyes, stop pulling logical fallacies and read the book. This further proves Bernie Sanders is the litmus test for stupidity. Anyone who supports him is a moron. You don't have a right to other people's services. Also, owning a gun is a right, now where is my free gun if you want to go off of that standard.
1
I am 30 years old. But age is only a number. But you seem to have become triggered. What did I say that as wrong? Other countries are at war with terror as well. And the WHO ranking is unreliable. Why did they stop making rankings? And is it fair to compare the US to countries like Malta and Andorra? Andorra has a population of around 85,000. The city I live in has over 400,000. Around 80% of Andorra's GDP is tourism and it is a tax haven. That means people with money visit there and keep their money there. Is that a fair comparison to the US?
1
Jeremy, I feel you need to do more research. What "right wing propaganda" did I spew?
1
Jeremy, where did I say that I agreed with everything the military does. I am just stating a fact. Even at that military spending is still pretty low compared to years past (in terms of percent GDP it has been dropping) and we do a lot to try to prevent violence. The main problem we have right now is terrorism. But at this point I feel we should pull out of several countries and watch the world burn for a while so people appreciate what we do.
1
Jeremy, do you even have a rebuttal at this point? Again, what does my age have to do with anything?
1
Jeremy, what did I say that was wrong and why? You can go back and look at my comments. It seems like you are dodging the issue because you don't know.
1
"Almost everything you said was wrong" How? "if you would like to go forward and state point by point your grievances" You know what I said, you feel they are wrong. Now please explain how.
1
"Public services mean we get police services, highway services, military services, health care services, education services etc etc" Police: Locally ran and funded Highways: 3/4 of roads are ran and funded locally Education: ran and funded locally Military: Constitutional and has a very strict structure I have an education, I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry.
1
John, also, when you say healthcare is a right, what quality do you mean? You mentioned highways so I feel you mean roads. We have areas with gravel roads and where they only get plowed after a snow fall when a local volunteer does it. Is that going to translate into healthcare?
1
And if healthcare is a right than why not food and housing? You need that before healthcare.
1
"So now you are changing your tune again. You say no one has the right to any people's services." They don't. "Then you argue that as long it is state run it is fine?" The more local government is the more control the people have over it. There are advantages to having government, but when not controlled it can become oppressive. People were willing to vote for Clinton, for example, in order to keep their government programs. They were willing to vote for a corporate puppet and deal with her as long as she was willing to keep the ACA and SS. "So you DO support taxes or what you call "theft" of other people's labor after all. " I never said taxes were theft, but with that said you are still not guaranteed any of those services. If no one wants to be a teacher than you won't have an education system. If no one wants to be a cop than you won't have a police system. "So you want everything to be funded by the states? No national park services, no postal services, no freeways, no NASA etc?" Not true. One, the postal service is in the constitution. With freeways I already told you that 3/4 of funding for roads is state and local. Even at that roads are constitutional. Parks and NASA can be funded easily at the local level. You feel that without the federal government those things will cease to exist which is not true. "Just admit it, you just parrot whatever the donor class that fund the libertarian "think tanks" want you to think." Is that supposed to be an argument? " You guys are always using the same phrases," Ironic considering you are giving the same response as everyone else the second someone suggest there is a problem with government. I bring up a problem with government, or at the very least a concern and you yell "ROADS!" like most on the left do.
1
"I am perfectly fine with poor people with no wealth or income getting food stamps. Housing? If people have zero money, no income, I do think people should be offered a housing alternative so they dont have to freeze to death in the streets on the condition that they apply for jobs." I don't mind a welfare program if it were ran locally. What would be even better would be a program where those people work for the community, such as cleaning up the parks or litter. "I am pretty sure you would sing another tune regarding health care if you were born severely disabled and you had to beg in the streets for money each day to pay your medicine." If I were in that condition it is very clear that no one cares about me and I can't be productive in society. Thus, as a whole, I am worthless.
1
"The interstate system was developed by Dwight D. Eisenhower at a cost of 511 billion dollars by today's standards. I'm failing to see your ridiculous point." Do you have a point there? You might as well say "The Cubs won the 2016 World Series". All you did was state a fact, now what does it mean? How is it relevant to your argument? " The United States spent additional billions in this time period industrializing Japan." Again, what is your point? " Not to mention that over a third of our workforce was unionized at the time" Again, what is your point? All you are doing is stating facts but are giving zero interpretation on them. "federal education, and healthcare funds were also increased, " Because the Department of Education was created in the late 70s. When you create a federal program designed to fund education than of course federal spending will go up. Even at that most funding is still state and local. Also in the mid 60s Medicare and Medicaid were create which accounts for more federal funding. That is like me buying a new car and saying my spending in car insurance went up. Well of course consider how I bought a new car. Of course federal spending went up in those areas, a program was created. " while The United States enjoyed the most economically prosperous time across the board in its' history. I guess those people just didn't know wtf they were doing." Ah, now we get to the point. Two things. One, during that time the entire world was rebuilding because of WWII and we weren't. So we had a head start. Next, what a lot of people predicted will happen when you expand the federal government did happen. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid and SS are losing money. The Department of Education has not improved education but instead created waste. We now have politicians who are corrupt and take money from big donors because we have lost control of government. The more local government is the easier it is to control. At the federal level it is very difficult to control. So you say "I guess those people just didn't know wtf they were doing". I say they did. They knew that they had all the power. In 1967 there were 155 individuals that earned over $200,000 that paid $0 in federal income taxes. The Tax Reform Act of 1969 was signed which created the 70% tax bracket for those earning over $200,000. Richard Nixon, who signed the law, fell into that bracket in 1970 and paid only $789 in taxes. Think about that.
1
John, the harsh reality is that if you can't produce in society and if no one cares enough about you to take care of you, as in friends and family, than no one will care when you die. I am sorry the truth hurts. "You cant get support for an agenda that turn America into a third world hellhole where millions of the most vulnerable people are left to beg in the streets" Who are these millions? We don't have universal healthcare right now and meanwhile we don't have millions begging. So who are these millions? "because it requires inter-state border taxes," Can't do that, unconstitutional. "restrictions on the movement of people between states" Again, unconstitutional. "Its impossible for a state to fund programs when everyone can just pick and choose where to live according to their needs at any given time and refusing to pay taxes through lifelong residency." Not true. One, having choice is great. If a state is doing poorly than people will move. That's competition. Next, states can have restrictions on people moving and benefiting from their programs. Take in-state tuition for example. To receive it you have to abandon your old residency buy registering your car in that state, getting a job in that state, being living there for a year and so on. Much like if you were to move to Canada you will have to have a job and wait five years before you can take advantage of their benefits. Rules can be set in place. " The "states rights" agenda is just a race to the bottom" There is zero evidence for that. But a centralized program is all 50 states regressing to the norm.
1
"You are a firm believer in making sure disabled people suffer." Never suggested that at all. " Similar to Hitler's euthanasia program of the disabled." Godwin's Law "State's rights will lead to strong independence movements." What's wrong with autonomy? Every state deals with different issues. A one size fits all policy simply does not work. "Tax competition is a race to the bottom. " There is more to the economy and society than just taxes. "its impossible to fund programs." They have been funding programs for years such as K-12 education, their roads, police and highway patrol and so on. " It must be a lifetime commitment." Why? If you move to a state and work there you are now a tax payer. " "A state that wants to fund programs with a VAT cant have a 0% VAT state right next door with free movement of goods." Why not? My state has that and no income taxes. People love it. "States will demand to set tariffs" Unconstitutional. "You are advocating for a complete halt on inter-state migration and mobility between states." Nope, not at all. You are free to move from state to state as you please. If you can benefit from their social programs is up to the states. But you can move freely.
1
John, what makes you think that states can't fund public safety nets? They fund so many other programs. And you talk about barriers but yet states still have taxes and they still fund social programs. So tell me why do you think that states can't fund those programs when they fund so many other programs? "you proudly proclaim that people with no or low value in the marketplace must die if they dont have friends that can take care of them 24/7. " Truth hurts. The are worthless to society. I never suggested killing them off, I am saying that if they do die no one will care.
1
"No states dont fund any meaningful social programs." So K-12 education is not meaningful? "Not only that, you dont have empathy," I have empathy, I just know how to control my emotions.
1