Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "" video.

Andy Tihonow, Cuomo did not debate her. Cuomo gave her softball questions and she went on an ultra leftist rant with talking points. She even misrepresented the Koch brothers study that factcheck.org called her out on it. Reality is that this girl is either one of two things 1. Completely stupid 2. Has bagged talking points on whatever issue she is asked about and goes no farther than that Either one is not good.
4
GetBuckets, you were called out for your ignorance and you end up acting like a SJW. And if Jimmy Dore is your source for economic input you are in trouble. I have seen a lot of Dore's videos, he is either very deceptive or not too bright. Going to that video you posted, to start, what is the ILSR? How are they credible? Dore never explains that. He next reads some statements from that report but the report never explains their reasoning for Amazon being bad for the economy. Dore complained about how more people, because of Amazon, are working 3 or 4 jobs when the percent of workers working more than one job has been dropping. I can go on but reality is Dore is not that great. I have watched many of his videos.
3
robinsss, in terms of percent GDP our defense is not that large. It was around 10% in the 60s and has dropped since.
2
I worked at Amazon, it wasn't bad. This girl is not looking out for anyone's best interest. Or maybe she is, but she is dumb and should not be in Congress. Thus her opponents are looking out for other's best interest and trying to keep her out of Congress.
2
Poverty is subjected to where you live. I earn $23,000 a year and I am fine. Cost of living is low where I live. You also have to include household income. How many of those earning $40,000 a year or less are a secondary earner in a household where the primary earner earns much more? For example, when I was earning $10,000 a year as a part time worker my dad earned around $70,000 a year. Learn the many variables associated with stats and stop saying appeal to emotion phrases like "living wage". This is why many consider candidates like AOC a joke.
2
I will do the math on my part Rent: 760 a month Car: $0, paid off Gas: $30, I fill my tank, at best, once a month. I mostly walk to work Groceries: $150 a month. I have two cats which inflates that price and I do shop at a more expensive place Internet: 70 Cell phone: 35 Laundry: 20 Electricity: 50 760+30+150+70+20+50=1080 After taxes I am paid $1700 a month. So that leaves me $620 a month for whatever. I do have insurance through my employer. These are honest numbers, I keep track of every dime I spend.
2
Insomnatech, it isn't that easy. The phrase "living wage" is completely subjective an thus means nothing. I have no problem living off of $150 a month on groceries. I eat healthy with a lot of fruits and vegetables. I walk to work thus gas is low. I can actually walk more if I wanted. For example, I can walk to the gym but drive instead. I am not saying my living situation should be the norm, and in reality it isn't. But the idea that $40,000 is poverty level is simply not true.
2
It was cumulative. So yes, that number did take into account those earning $0-15K. Also, saying 200 million earn less than $20,000 a year is very deceptive. Look at how many people work to begin with, and consider household income. Just because someone earns $0 does not mean they are poor if they have a spouse or parent who is well off.
2
Amazon is a corporation. Saying they pay $0 in federal income taxes is highly deceptive as their tax code and financial situation is completely different than that of an individual. Also, cars do last longer and are more efficient. You are nitpicking at that point. How many people know how to work on cars in the first place? Mechanics have always existed for that reason. It wasn't like modern cars with sensors came and so did mechanics, we had mechanics in the 50s. Also, it isn't just cars. Look at smart phones. Look at how a company like Amazon saves people time and money. Instead of driving around looking for something that might exist in different stores, you simply look online. Again, that is why there are many shortcomings in inflation calculation. CPI is a method that is over 100 years old that has hardly been adjusted.
2
The Loner Stoner, individuals are taxed differently. Also, almost half of the nation pay no federal income taxes, how is that "fair"? And there are loopholes for middle and lower class as well. I earn $23,000 a year and I have plenty of loopholes where I pay very little taxes. You bring up "fair share" but don't define it.
2
You are complaining about a tax code that Trump and the current Republicans wanted to simplify.
2
I agree with you on the tax cuts. As for the carbon tax, you are increasing the price of production. Fossil fuels are still the best source of energy we have at the industrial level. Taxing carbon more will increase prices. It is a backdoor way to tax businesses more. Also, it is highly debatable is burning fossil fuels is that destructive. Over time we will go towards alternative forms of energy as they advance to being better, but we can't force it nor should we hurt the economy.
2
Chris, the question is if government is the best source in investing in those programs. Government is the only source for defense. But with healthcare and education the private sector can arguably do it much better. Just because the majority agree with her does not mean it is the best system. Even at that it is highly debatable if the majority agrees with her. If they do why are many candidates she endorsing losing?
1
Saying that 50% earn $30,000 a year or less is very deceptive. As the person in the video said, many are part time or short term. You also need to factor in cost of living, household income and so on. You can't just go off of what an individual makes alone, you need to include other factors. For example, I earn $23,000 a year but I am fine due to how low the cost of living is where I live. It isn't just unemployment, labor participation is no longer dropping when it has been dropping for years prior. So more people are looking for work and finding jobs. Buying stocks means a company has more to invest meaning more jobs. As for buying power dropping that is arguably not true. If you use PCE or GDP deflator method of inflation wages have outpaced inflation. CPI hash many shortcomings such as failure to account for technological advancements. For example, while a car is more expensive today in pure sticker price, cars today last longer, get better gas mileage and are safer, all that saves money in the long run. On corporate taxes, in order to pay a lower rate they have to hire a team of accountants and lawyers to take advantage of those loopholes. By lowering the rate corporations no longer have to do that and can invest money elsewhere generating more wealth. Many times some parts of a tax code is an excuse for the government to create frivolous jobs. I enjoy how you try to show how bad this video is while omitting important information.
1
It isn't so much opinion but facts. You bring up 50% earning less than $30,000 a year. While that may be factual you are being very deceptive. You are leaving out a lot of facts to push propaganda. That is a problem. Stock holders invest in a company and expect to make money. Is that so wrong? If it weren't for the shareholders a company like Amazon would not be as large as it is. That means less wealth and less jobs for people. I pointed out how wages are arguably not stagnated. Look at PCE inflation and GDP deflator and how technology has improved causing goods and services to be cheaper. I worked for Amazon, they treat their employees fine. Jeff Bezos earns $80,000 a year. You are just looking for someone to attack and Amazon is it. You do so while ignoring a lot of important information and as a SJW you call me stupid.
1
It is arguable if wages are stagnate. The Minneapolis Fed showed that with using PCE wages have outpaced inflation. There is a lot of data showing wages have not been stagnate. Investors invest in stocks to make money. Again, no stocks means businesses down size meaning less jobs. You haven't given me any facts. Meanwhile, you are ignoring a study by the Minneapolis Fed.
1
Look up the Learn Liberty video entitled "The Real "Truth About the Economy:" Have Wages Stagnated?" Again, it is arguable that wages have not stagnated. With technological advancement goods and services have become cheaper and better. In the 90s you need to buy a calculator, phone, walkman, and camera all separately. Now you have that in you smart phone which are given away. There is a lot to the numbers and I encourage you to look deeper in them. So far you haven't. Not saying the situation can't be better, but simply saying wages have stagnate is something that one can easily argue against.
1
Lowering the corporate tax rate and removing the loopholes means companies don't have to invest that much in accountants and lawyers to pay a lower rate. Yes, they paid more than the 35%, but in order to do so they had to spend money on accountants and lawyers Simply lowering the rate makes it easier for them so they have more money to invest elsewhere and increase productivity. As for wage stagnation the issue is that many stats shows that is not true. Yes, if you use CPI inflation wages have stagnated. But if you use PCE or GDP deflator method of inflation wages have outpaced inflation. Also, inflation measurements have shortcomings. One is how they don't account for technological advancements. For example, cars are more expensive in dollar amount, but they last longer, get better gas mileage and are safer, all which saves money in the long run.
1
1. Most economic stats are seasonally adjusted. So pointing out seasonal workers is flawed as the unemployment numbers account for them. 2. The rich already pay a higher percent. And there is plenty of evidence that tax cuts do increase jobs. Now there is more to it than just cutting taxes. However, lower taxes means more money to invest meaning more jobs. As for the deficit we have had one for years. Also, taking a few steps back is necessary before going forward. You are looking at short term and not long term. If you run up a deficit but end up with a surplus a few years later than you have a success. 3. The increase in the defense budget is to counter the fact that for years under Obama and the democrats the defense budget has been stagnate. In terms of percent GDP the defense budget has been dropping. From 2009 to 2017 it went from 4.6% of GDP to 3.1%. This is one of the advantages of the two party system. One party places a freeze on defense spending and the other increase it. It becomes a balancing act. The defense spending is the lowest its been in almost 2 decades. It was the lowest in 2000 when it was at less than 3% of GDP.
1
She said 200 million Americans and said that was 40% of the nation. That is where the 500 million comes from. As for the bracket, he is using the cumulative numbers. Congrats, you are as dumb as AOC.
1
BernieBro, the deficit is not exploding, it is around the same it always been. Difference with Trump is that he is looking long term. You take a few steps back before you go forward. School funding has not been cut. Healthcare is a mess because of years of massive regulations by the government. He does not deny climate change Ultra leftists like AOC could turn her district red. Fact is people like AOC are reasons why Trump won.
1
BernieBro, the deficit is expected to be around 4% of GDP. That is normal. In the 70s it was there, in the 80s it was around 5%, in the early 90s it was over 4%. I know that ultra leftists like yourself struggle with stats and math but you have to put these number in proper perspective. Less than 10% of education funding is federal. Most comes from the state and local level. If education is being cut than blame your local government. The Paris Climate Accord. was a bad deal for the US. It is similar to NATO, countries don't have to follow it where the US will be spending a lot. As for climate change being a hoax, it is misrepresented by the political left. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years.
1
So me saying that climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years means I deny it? I don't understand your logic. Federal education accounts for less than 10% of total education spending. Most do go to Title I schools who are some of the lowest achieving schools in the nation. Seems like the extra money is not helping. The 4% matters as it is in line with previous deficit. It seems like the education system failed you.
1
Humans do influence the climate based purely on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How much is the question. The other question is if it is even a threat. You complain about people who watch Fox News, which is a logical fallacy, but look at AOC. She does not know how unemployment is calculated but people praise her. I can easily say the people who support AOC are not educated. It goes both ways bud. Again, you have to put those numbers in perspective. You cherry picked two years. 4% is were the deficit has been before. It has been higher and has been lower. 4%, compared to previous years, is not "exploding".
1
Just because the majority of Americans support something does not mean it is a good idea. If the majority off Americans supported slavery would you feel we should allow it? Also, if the majority did support it why hasn't it been passed in numerous states? I am a scientist myself, so I have seen the science in climate change. What exactly do you want me to look up? Obama did not reduce the deficit, the republicans taking over the house stopped giving him blank checks. I love how now you are concerned about deficit when you want to massively increase spending and did so under Obama.
1
How am I a terrible scientist? Because I think like they do? BTW, I am getting my doctorate in physical chemistry. Red states do well. Some of the states with the highest poverty rates are blue states. Also, if a red state does not want a certain program, why force them to have it? That is really fascist of you. Now you are playing the race card.
1
reaper39, saying the majority likes it does not mean it is the best system. Also, in Colorado close to 80% voted against a single payer healthcare system, so I guess the vast majority like our current healthcare system and oppose single payer.
1
We really shouldn't. We need to expose her as there will be a great chance her district, which is as blue as it gets, would vote for a republican. That would be a devastating defeat for the democrats.
1
1. Warren Buffet paid closed to 40% in income taxes. Most of his earnings are in capital gains. The capital gains tax is low because it encourages investors to hold onto stocks for a year (after a year the capital gains tax drops). If that did not exist trading will increase massively causing major chaos in the stock market and uncertainty in the economy. 2. Labor participation is stagnate where for years prior it was going down. Even with that unemployment is still going down. 3. Wage stagnation is arguably a myth. If you use CPI method of inflation yes, wages have stagnated. But if you use PCE or GDP deflator method of inflation wages have outpaced inflation. Also, CPI is around 100 years old and has many flaws. One is that it does not account for technological advancement. For example, a car today cost more than in the past in pure sticker price. However, cars today last longer, get better gas mileage and are safer, all which saves money in the long run. 4. People die in every nation due to lack of healthcare. That 45,000 you point out is what I like to call a "empty stat". It is empty as you have nothing to compare it to. Is that high compare to other nations or is it the norm? Up to 7000 die in Australia every year waiting for "elective" surgery. Also, the problem with that 45,000 stat is that they are poor individuals. There is a correlation between being poor and having bad health due to personal life choices. There are higher rates of smoking and obesity with the poor. So the question becomes do they die due to lack of healthcare or due to being in bad health to begin with?
1
It isn't about her making a mistake. It is the fact that her ideas are crap and she cannot justify them. If she actually knew what she was talking about she would not support the radical ideas she does.
1
GetBuckets, a SJW is someone who completely dismisses the other side and becomes over emotional while doing so, like you are. How is Amazon a monopoly? You still have many retail stores like Walmart and Sears. You also have local ones like Hy Vee and Raleys. Amazon has benefited the economy in many ways. It made shopping easier for people. Instead of driving around wasting time and gas looking in stores for something that might exist, you can shop for it online quicker while saving gas. That saves time and money that can be invested elsewhere. Many small businesses lose money as well. Dore has no clue how a business operates. And their workers are paid the market rate. Again, if you get your economic advice from Jimmy Dore you are in trouble.
1
She is saying things that are completely wrong. Saying unemployment is down because people have more than one job or that 200 million people is 40% of the nation. Even at that I can give her a pass but the issue is that the media is not calling her out on her false numbers. Trevor Noah did not call her out on her numbers. Cuomo did not call her out when she misrepresented the Koch brothers study. This girl lives in a bubble and with what she says there are two explanations 1. She is that stupid or 2. She has pre determined talking points on issues Both situations are bad. As for Trump, he is smart. As for what he says, welcome to politics. Politicians are going to say things to stir up a crowd and get them to vote for you. AOC is far worse.
1
The Loner Stoner, depending on what method of inflation you use wages have either stagnated or have outpaced inflation. Yes, using CPI wages have stagnated. But use PCE or GDP deflator wages have outpaced inflation. Also, there are many shortcomings in inflation measurements. One is how it does not account for technological advancements. For example, cars are more expensive today on dollar price, but they are safer, last longer and get better gas mileage, all that saves money in the long run. You, like AOC, have a lot to learn.
1
The Loner Stoner, define "fair share". You complain about DeVos when you should be complaining about our complex tax code. Many on the right wants to simplify the federal tax code where you can do it on a postcard. Instead we have a complex tax code that people like AOC want to make even more complex.
1
The Loner Stoner, you complain about DeVos, and individual when it comes to taxes, and then you attack Amazon, a corporation. You do know they are completely different?
1
No one is crapping their pants over AOC. They are pointing and laughing at at 28 year old bartender that does not know how unemployment is calculated. If here policies were popular why did candidates she endorsed, like Welder, lose?
1
He does. However, he does not have billions like the ultra left claims. He is worth billions due to him owning a lot of shares of his company. That is why he pays a lower tax rate despite being worth billions. He really earns $100,000 a year.
1