Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Ben Shapiro: Don’t Cut Military Spending Cut Social Security" video.

  1. Shapiro spoke in front of congress and debated members of congress.
    8
  2. So are you. You have yet to explain how Shapiro is wrong.
    8
  3. I watched the video. To start, Shapiro is not wrong. Since WWII federal government spending went from 14% of GDP to 20%. Since 1960 defense spending went from 10% of GDP to around 3% of GDP. Government spending is going up and it is not due to military spending. As for Kyle's remark on us spending more than the next X countries combine. If you combine the GDP of those nations and look at defense spending in terms of percent it comes to around 2.5%. In the US we are around 3%. Sure we are still higher, but not by much. It makes sense that we spend more on defense then them combine as we have a much larger GDP. It is safe to assume we spend more on education as well compared to many of those nations combine. Kyle is being very deceptive here.
    5
  4. I watched the video, Kyle is wrong. To start, federal government spending went from 14% of GDP after WWII to 20% of GDP. Since 1960 defense spending went from 10% of GDP to around 3% of GDP. Shapiro is correct, we are spending too much and defense spending is not the problem.
    4
  5. How is he wrong?
    4
  6. Most military workers are the average Joe.
    4
  7. Shapiro is more intelligent than Chomsky. Chomsky praised Venezuela.
    4
  8. Shapiro debated members of congress. Kyle debated Cenk and Razorfist. Shapiro is way out of Kyle's league.
    3
  9. Hunter Thompson, you forgot that Kyle just "debated" Cenk. This is why people feel Shapiro is smart, he actually debates people and can connect with them. Even if he is wrong at least he is willing to have a discussion.
    3
  10. Shapiro never said anything about cutting grandma's benefits. That is a strawman by Kyle.
    3
  11. Bill Anderson, did he say he wants to cut the programs for the elderly? You can reform, and even cut those programs while old people currently on them do not lose a dime.
    3
  12. litoo2002, how is Shapiro wrong? As for Chomsky, he called corporations "coercive" and "oppressive". No matter how bad you view Walmart I have never seen them hold a gun to someone's head and force them to work there. Chomsky is a guy who sounds smart but really isn't.
    3
  13. Also, he actually goes out and debates people and have discussions with them, something the left is failing at. He is connecting with the other side. The political left had Clinton run as president who was partying with her celebrity friends and Bernie who tells business owners to screw themselves. The left lost touch with the common man. On top of that you have people like Kyle who live in a bubble. A part of being an intellectual is understanding the other person's position.
    3
  14. Never will happen. Kyle is a moron and will get destroyed by Shapiro. Where was Shapiro wrong in this video?
    2
  15. Shapiro actually goes in public and challenges himself. Kyle lives in a bubble.
    2
  16. Mister AF, Kyle didn't. To start, Shapiro never said to cut SS. Even if so, he is not wanting to cut grandma's check. Next, since the 1960s federal government spending has been going up while defense spending has been going down in percent of GDP. Defense spending has been going down from 10% in 1960 to around 3% now. Medicare and Medicaid was created in the 60s. With many people living longer SS is being used more. SS, medicare and medicaid are taking up most of the federal budget and should be looked at in deficit reduction. Defense spending for over 50 years has been reduced. Next, Kyle saying we spend more than the next 8 countries combine is deceptive. Our GDP is much larger than those countries. We spend more on education than Germany, France and the UK as well. Should we cut education spending? Kyle won't debate anyone as he will get destroyed.
    2
  17. "What good is debating people like Ben Shapiro going to do?" In a span of 2 years he has made it as far as Kyle has in 10. Shapiro one of the big dogs on the right. If Shapiro is so wrong Kyle should be able to destroy him and gain some viewers. Fact is Kyle is scared. All of his talking points can easily be countered. Just look at my more recent comments.
    2
  18. Leftists like Kyle just want to give money away.
    2
  19. "America has a larger army than every the 9 next countries military combine" That is very deceptive as our GDP is comparable to those countries combine. In fact, if you were to combine the GDP of those nations defense spending will take up around 2.5% of GDP, in the US it is around 3.5%. You are talking about a difference of a percent. If you were to look at education spending it is safe to assume our education spending will be larger than many of those countries combine. Also, many of those nations are not following the NATO agreement causing us to fill in the gap. " Along with this, you have shitty healthcare" Our healthcare system is on par with the rest of the world.
    2
  20. "So, because there are SOME caveats to that 45,000 study means that not a significant amount of people die to lack of health insurance in the US?" I am not saying no one dies due to lack of insurance. My point is that you cannot get accurate numbers. You are just throwing out a number while not putting it in perspective. There is a lot to it. This is why people get their PhDs in statistics. Also, define "significant". 45,000 is 0.01% of the population. 30,000 die a year in traffic accidents, do we ban driving? Also, what is that number in other nations? Where are those studies? You have nothing to compare it to with other nations. And if you say that number is zero in other nations then you are lying or have no clue what you are talking about. "YOU REALIZE that if you are poor, you also have lower access to health-insurance, and thus have a higher chance of dying? That quote that you keep re-posting actually vindicates MY ARGUMENT, not yours. " Being poor is not an excuse to be obese, or to smoke. The point was even if they had access to healthcare or had insurance they would still die due to being in bad health. "Also, that health professor was in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM saying that the findings of her study were incorrect, wildly incorrect or not significant, she was saying that there is a caveat, but not one that debunks the study." It isn't debunking the study, it is showing a limitations. I am not completely dismissing the study, and neither is that professor. It is that there are limitations and you have to recognize that and realize that number may vary and may not be a major issue. You can't just throw numbers out there, you have to put them in perspective. "I consulted Canadians on Quora, and they are all saying that the you get shipped off for care immediately if it is not an elective medical procedure and it is urgent." Then why do people die waiting for heart surgery? "Therefore, many of the ''deaths'' in the Canadian system are in elective procedures. " How is that elective if they died? " but rather factors that are not accounted for such as old-age." So it is fair for you to bring up other factors such as old age but I can't such as poor health habits? You have double standards. "but ironically, you deride the Havard Study for being misleading while the study you keep re-posting (from a conservative think-tank) is actually MORE misleading." It is a counter argument. Do you just read studies that support your ideas? Or do you read opposing viewpoints? I am not saying that book has all the answer or that it is 100% correct. It is an opposing viewpoint. Healthcare is much more complicated than just saying "45,000 people die a year". Ok, and......30,000 die a year in traffic accidents. We can ban driving and make that number to be zero. Or with that 45,000 number, how do you make that number to be zero? You are not providing any context. "Not to mention, you proclaim that there are caveats to the US study, but magically none to the Canadian wait-times system study that you cite? " I agree there are caveats as there are in every study. I am trying to pull people to the middle on this issue. Too many here throw out that 45,0000 number with zero perspective or zero idea what they are actually referencing. They saw a number and ran with it. They do not question it. That is a problem.
    2
  21. Peter H, care to give examples?
    2
  22. Because he is. He gives supporting evidence to backup his ideas and can break them down. Also, I have yet to see anyone on the left explain why he is wrong.
    2
  23. How does poverty work?
    1
  24. I watched the video. Kyle talked about comparing our defense budget to 8 countries that have a much smaller GDP than ours. That is not an argument as I bet our education budget is larger than many of those countries combined as well.
    1
  25. It isn't that easy. With homelessness you may be able to give them all a home, but long term they will destroy the public housing. They are homeless for a reason.
    1
  26. bernman23, universal healthcare will not save money unless you lower quality.
    1
  27. 1. Defense spending has been decreasing for years from 10% of GDP in 1960 to now being at around 3% of GDP. 2. You saying we need to "restructure" it shows the flaw of socialism on the large scale. It works until you run out of other people's money. 3. I agree that saying something is "popular" is not an argument. Being popular does not mean it is best for the country. On your last paragraph " Ben prides himself in being objective when he says that healthcare is not a fundamental right bestowed by the constitution, but neither is only being taxed for military and public safety (police and fire) purposes. " Military is constitutional and raising taxes for it is constitutional. Police and fire are ran and funded locally. In many places fire departments are private and 70% of fire fighters are volunteer.
    1
  28. john cornwell, with capitalism they only way people earn money is by producing for others. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos got rich by providing something to the people to use. They did not shoot at some food and and struck oil.
    1
  29. Rueben Chacko, I never heard of Razorfist until that debate. He is nowhere near the same level as Shapiro. Also, I saw that debate, it was a push at best.
    1
  30. seeibe, most members of congress are smart.
    1
  31. "but he never goes out and debates actual economists like Richard Wolff, never debates people like attorneys or other experts." He has. He debated members of congress. He has had discussions with actual economists (there are way more economists than just Wolff). Has Wolff ever debated anyone? I am not sure, but I have not seen them.
    1
  32. "Facts and evidence have a liberal bias" Not true. In fact, at the core on economic issues the political left is driven on emotions and the political right is driven on facts and reasoning. This is why Kyle keeps showing the same handful of graphs and numbers and then goes on emotional rants without looking at the plethora of other studies out there. Take healthcare for example, he keeps bringing up the 45,000 number and then goes on a rant about how that number is zero in other countries (it isn't) and pushes an emotional argument on that number despite never putting it in any perspective. Shapiro at least debates people, Kyle does not. Kyle lives in a bubble.
    1
  33. "Just look at how poor red states are." And that is a prime example. You have to factor in cost of living. WV is 2nd to last in median income, but is number 1 in home ownership rate. CA, when you factor in PPP, is number 1 in poverty. CA is very left leaning. This is why Kyle and his fans do not see the other side. You say an appeal to emotion statement that on the surface is true, but in reality there is much more to it than what you are presenting.
    1
  34. Bill Anderson, so we should have zero funding for military spending?
    1
  35. Jayjay Sahin, you say "Not everyone is a walking computer." That is why we have debates. Watch Matt Christiansen's video on Cenk telling people to Google it in the debate against Shapiro. We have people on stage because these issues are more complicated than just facts. If you want to go off of pure facts then remove all emotions.
    1
  36. Cunningman45, we need to cut somewhere. Fact is that for over 50 years the programs that have been growing are the social welfare programs and the area that has been cut has been defense.
    1
  37. MichaleMike, you are talking about a difference of a percent there. During Obama's time defense spending was stagnate in pure dollar amount and thus went down in terms of percent of GDP.
    1
  38. LaseRamon, to call the US healthcare system "third world" makes you unfit for this conversation. Our healthcare system is very strong. It has shortcomings, but so do other nations. Other nations struggle in many ways.
    1
  39. "This is a red herring. There is no rule that says military spending has to be a certain percentage of anything. " It isn't a red herring. Out GDP is much larger than those nations so it makes sense that we spend more then them. As I said, I bet we spend more on education then them combine. Also, the NATO agreement was supposed to set an amount on defense spending.
    1
  40. "The percentage went down because our economy got bigger. " And our defense budget did not keep up. Also, federal government spending went up as percent of GDP. So while federal government spending increased defense spending went down. "That's not carte blanche to spend more than the next 7 countries combined " I bet you our education spending is larger than many of those nations combine, but you will ignore that.
    1
  41. Jose Galdamez, that ranking is arbitrary with vague methods that leave out numerous variables. To start,they ignore cancer survival rates where the US is number 1 at. And raw data like life expectancy is influenced by many variables. For example, if you were to remove car accidents and murders the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Is that to say the US is number 1? No. It shows that the differences in data is so minute that you cannot make an accurate ranking. Anyone can do any legit statistical analysis and have the US be number 1 or have the US be the worse.
    1
  42. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book, it is very informative.
    1
  43. "why do we have uninsured and insured people who die from treatable diseases and conditions, compared to the zero people in other first world countries with single payer healthcare? " That number is not zero in other nations. There are many cases of people dying on waiting lists. Look at these papers "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “   Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart
    1
  44. LaseRamon, that 35,000 is a deceptive number. To start, you cannot get an accurate measure for that standard as people who lack insurance are poor to begin with and bad health is associated with poverty to begin with. There are higher rates of obesity, type II diabetes and smoking amongst the poor. So the question becomes did they die due to being in bad health to due to lack of healthcare? Also, to say "That doesn't happen in other developed countries." is 100% not true. Many die due to the shortcomings in their system. Here are the titles of two papers "True versus reported waiting times for valvular aortic stenosis surgery" Can J Cardiol. “   Analysis of deaths while waiting for cardiac surgery among 29,293 consecutive patients in Ontario, Canada" Heart " So again tell me how our health care compares to the other developed countries when so many people die due to a lack of it?" You are looking at small numbers. 35,000 is 0.01% of the overall population. Many die or become worse off in other systems due to longer wait times. To say that other nations have it better is false. They have many shortcomings as well. It is not to say they have it worse, but they are not better.
    1
  45. "Citation? The numbers are still much higher in the US, and the number of uninsured is also demonstrably higher, considering the number of uninsured people in other countries is actually 0." I posted the titles of two papers where people do die in waiting lists. No country covers everyone.
    1
  46. "so does saying the healthcare system of the US is on par with the rest of the world also makes YOU unfit for the conversation. because its easily disproven." It isn't "easily disproven" as it is a highly debated topic that involve a plethora of numbers and variables. For example, if you remove car accidents and murders from all countries the US is number 1 in life expectancy. Considering how life expectancy is heavily weighted in these rankings (around 60% in the Bloomberg ranking for example) one can argue that the US is number 1.
    1
  47. The WHO ranking was criticized so much that they have not made another ranking in almost 20 years. It compared the US to countries like Malta.
    1
  48. ". The United States spends more of its GDP on healthcare than any country on the fucking planet." And we lead the world in R&D.
    1
  49. Chen, I like to have debates on these topics.
    1
  50. Tenma, most advancements in R&D comes from the private sector. Government funded R&D is very vague and covers many areas beyond healthcare.
    1
  51. "It's not like the poor avoid going to the doctor to pay for their treatment or anything in fear of going bankrupt because they dont have insurance or anything. But nah, that number is 'deceptive' and not the complete propaganda spewed by pink here." There are two options, either the very poor suffer or the very sick. In other nations the very sick suffer with limited resources and lower quality. That is why cancer survival rate are low in other nations. Reality is that no nation covers everyone, period. Anyone who says a nation does is either lying or has no idea what they are talking about. In the US the poor do suffer with bankruptcy or maybe even death (which again, that 35,000 number is deceptive). But the quality is high where the vast majority are covered. In other nations the very sick suffer. Sure the poor can get are, but the very sick don't. "Btw that book hurts your argument more than helps. If those other countries have the same quality healthcare as we but pay significantly less, then the problem is the for-profit system we have, a system that those other countries don't. " We also lead the world in R&D and we care for more advanced situations and illnesses. "Also i have no reason to take you seriously when you use aei as a source and then then dismiss commondreams because it's 'partisan'." I gave my reasoning for why the CommonWealthFund is a flawed ranking. That book is written by two professors and they cite all of their sources and methods for you to read and criticize. But of course you won't.
    1
  52. Cunningman45, R&D is valuable as healthcare is a very dynamic field. How is Shapiro wrong? I hear all the time from the left that he is wrong, now how is he?
    1
  53. "He is talking about TOTAL funding for Medicare and Social Security as compared to the TOTAL funding for military." Medicare and SS are not constitutional and make up social welfare programs. They can be lumped together. "The context is that people PAY directly to both programmes while the military is covered by taxation." What? Both are covered by taxes. Also, it is arguable that we can lower FICA taxes and people can save their own money. Also, it is arguable that payroll taxes do much more damage and that other means of saving for retirement are better.
    1
  54. "Medicare is paid by two trust funds, not by the government. " It is a part of the federal budget.
    1
  55. Bernard Powell, it doesn't matter if it is popular or not, we do not rule the nation on polls. Also, defense spending is actually constitutional, medicare and SS arguably aren't. SS and med programs are covered by payroll taxes, the new tax bill does not touch them.
    1
  56. michardav, I know how medicare and SS is covered. I feel the payroll tax is a very regressive tax that does way more harm than good.
    1
  57. "how so? BTW you do know you can opt out of SS, can you do the same with your income tax?" I can't opt out of SS payments. Also, where in the Constitution does it give the Congress authority to have SS?
    1
  58. Defense spending is constitutional.
    1
  59. "and they die waiting for drs in the USA." I don't disagree. Read the following paper “The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine” Chest "Plus I point out there is a difference between a 90 year old Canadian waiting for a heart transplant who passes while on a wait list and a ten year old American who dies because the parents don't have the money for chemo" Both are very extreme cases as a 10 year old on chemo is going to live a challenging life. Topics like these are discussed in medical school. But even at that the US has a higher cancer survival rate compared to Canada. " I also point out there's no such thing as medical bankruptcy in Canada, Europe, Australia or even China." Yeah, they die instead. What's your point?
    1
  60. "Well i would argue if the people want it then they should get it, as long as the want to pay for it. That how a Democracy should work. " That is called mob rule.
    1
  61. "that's the point, they declare bankruptcy and some still die." Not true. Those that do die have conditions so extreme that they are beyond help no matter what system. " Childhood cancers are lower, adult vary. Plus I point out the US has a higher cancer rate (6th compared to Canada's 12th)." No matter how many checkups you get you will still get cancer. The US has higher rates of obesity and receive more sunlight compared to canada. That plays a role as well. Also, Canada has light regulations. They have been fracking before us and produce more oil.
    1
  62. Majority rule is mob rule. That is why we do not do anything at the federal level by a simple majority. If 51% supported slavery should we make it legal?
    1
  63. HerkimerSnerd, I do not support the deficit increase, but you have to consider this. One idea of the tax cuts is that it will increase economic growth. So while we can have a higher deficit now we will a surplus later. What is higher? 50% of 100 or 10% of 1000?
    1
  64. "No less arbitrary than some insinuation that a military budget be capped by percentage of GDP rather than fixed cost. " As the economy grows so does government spending including the military. That is why we look at percent of GDP. The federal government spent around $360 million in defense in 1970. We have not even doubled that even though our GDP has gone up 20x. A larger economy means more workers and thus a larger military. "The arbitrariness of a measurement doesn’t inherently make it weaker. The Commonwealth Fund grouped its analyses by quality, equity, access, efficiency, and healthy lives. Those are metrics that can have a substantial effect on the lives of millions." It is arbitrary an vague. As I said anyone can do a legit analysis on the data to come up with their own rankings where the US can be number 1. What make the CWF so special? "When comparing to developed nations in the aggregate (i.e. multivariate analysis) the U.S. healthcare system fails to compete." How so? "“The report does reveal bright spots: Americans are more likely to survive cancer or stroke, and if we live to age 75 we're likely to keep on living longer than others. But these advances are dwarfed by the grave shortcomings.”" What shortcomings? And how do they "dwarf" cancer survival rate? Also, did the CWF factor in obesity rates, smoking rates, type II diabetes? Did the CWF factor in exposure to sunlight? Did they factor in overall health habits such as how active people are? There are many factors involved in this you cannot ignore. That is what makes these analysis vague and these rankings arbitrary. "On the issue of military spending, the main takeaway is that waste exists in the system, and that waste should be cut. Justifying military spending as percentage of GDP does nothing to address the actual waste." I agree there is waste and I agree it should be audited. But that applies for every program, including SS and medicare. " Put another way, if we could defend our nation just as well with half the budget why not cut it at least somewhat?" Because it isn't that easy. You can't just cut the budget in half. It still represents around 3% of the overall economy.
    1
  65. "People die every day because they can't afford medication.." People die for several reasons and they die in other nations as well.
    1
  66. Johnny Q, it doesn't matter. Defense spending is going down why federal government spending is increasing.
    1
  67. "You bring in stats that are irrelevant to the discussion an then say it doesn't matter. " They are not irrelevant to the argument. We are talking about two things here 1. Defense spending 2. Deficits due to federal government spending Over the past 50+ years one has been going up and one has been going down. "Plus after WWII there was a period of great economic growth so while the ration might have went down it doesn't mean the actual budget went down." That growth was due to the rest of the world rebuilding and us have a competitive edge. " Also government spending isn't increasing at least not by much, revenue is decreasing because of tax cuts" Tax revenue, in terms of percent of GDP, has been relatively equal between 15 to 20 percent of GDP. " The first law of libertarians "Government always bad"." Not really. Also, I never said that. I support government. I work for the government.
    1
  68. Ryan, in terms of percent of GDP defense spending is dropping. You have to have a standard and in this case it is the overall economy.
    1
  69. "The percentage of GDP is not an accurate barometer of military spending in this case. Since our overall gdp is almost always growing, " It is completely accurate. It shows that while the economy grew defense spending didn't. It is a direct comparison.
    1
  70. "I think it is you who is being deceptive here. Think about what you said. You suggested to look at the percentage of gdp countries spend on defense, but when you think about that for 2 seconds you should realize that percentages are not representations of what we need to defend ourselves from other countries" That is a different topic. But if you want to compare spending between countries you need a uniform standard. In this case percent of GDP. "You are forgetting that because other countries have lower GDPs they NEED to spend more in defense as a percentage of GDP" Makes zero sense. They spend less in education as well. They also have less to defend. Also, we can't just cut defense spending due to NATO. We actually follow our agreement.
    1
  71. Jonathan, welcome back. Maybe you have time to answer this question you failed to answer. Why isn't productivity connected to education? Now on to your comment. "First problem you are arguing, you are attempting how much we should spend to how much a country uses in comparison to their GDP. This statistic is completely useless when trying to argue how much we can or should spend, or arguing what should be increased or decreased. As always, I have to explain the simplest things to you. " It isn't how much we should or should not spend. People are constantly pointing at the dollar value without putting it into perspective. For over 50 years we have been cutting defense spending when you look at it in terms of percent of GDP. Now many on the left love to push the narrative of inflation and how everything is becoming expensive. So why shouldn't military spending? Yes, we are spending more on defense in terms of dollar amount. But in comparison to GDP we aren't. The economy is growing while defense spending is not at the same rate meaning we are scaling back defense spending. "This is because every country has drastically different Gross domestic products in quantity, and the military power isn't demonstrated by how much you spend in GDP rather how much you spend in actual dollars which allows you purchasing power of military technology, soldiers, etc, which is what we measure as military power. " Then why when it comes to healthcare you look at GDP? Why the different standards? Also, you have to look at GDP in military. A smaller country means less of a demand for a military. That means less tanks, jets, soldiers, etc. You talk about GDP and GDP per capita with everything else, but now all of a sudden when it comes to defense you don't? Why are you moving the goal posts? "That is you can have two countries Country A: Spends 95% of their GDP on military Country B: Spends 5% of their GDP on military If I ask you, what country is more powerful and who is a larger threat, any idiot will understand the answer is...You can't tell, because you have no idea what their percentage actually stands for."' Change defense to education. Country A spends 95% on education where Country B spends 5%. Country B has a plethora of doctorates which drives the cost of education down due to an over supply of professors. Country B is clearly more educated if Country A has less doctorates per capita which leads to limited classroom spots and thus higher prices. "If I then said Country A GDP = 10 billion Country B GDP = 2 Trillion Then you would say Country A = .95 * 10 billion - >9.5 billion Country B = .05 * 2 trillion -> 100 billion Now which one is a bigger threat? Oh look, country B would most likely be a far larger threat since they are spending more than 10x the amount even though their percentage is far less. " How big is country B? The US has a GDP of nearly $20 trillion. Our size alone makes us powerful. We can cut all defense spending and have everyone fight with the guns they own and we can beat a country like Mexico Canada with a weak military due to the fact we have 6 times more people. "The reality is, the GDP that other countries spend has no actual relevance in terms of power. " It does as GDP is the overall economy and is also the limitations in the economy of that country. If you are going to make that claim then stop making the claim of comparing healthcare costs and education in terms of GDP. The US spends more in pure dollar amount in education compared to other countries thus we have a way more powerful education system. Agree? "The United States doesn't need to spend more in military because they are already a power house when it comes to it. GDP% does not determine strength of military as example above because it doesn't tell you how much that actually is." I never said the US needs to spend more. However, you have to compare with GDP percent, there is no other way. We spend more than most countries for one simple reason, we have the largest economy in the world. Just like we spend more in pure dollar amount on education than every other country because......wait for it.......we have the largest economy in the world. "Theres a reason why people advocate increasing costs in healthcare, education. It's because we are suppose to attempt to increase them to help the public that is paying the taxes." Why education? Remember, education has nothing to do with productivity according to you. It will be a waste. Also, we spend more on healthcare at the federal level than we do on defense already. "Increasing military more and more is a giant waste of money since we are already the strongest at it." And we spend more on education and healthcare compared to the rest of the world, so maybe we should cut that as well. Especially considering how education has nothing to do with productivity. "Comparing GDP % as if it demonstrates any type of military capability is beyond moronic." Except many sources give it as such. "Anyways, I have to go back to my studies," Why waste your time? You are not going to be any more productive.
    1
  72. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS Why do sources give it as such? Also, a larger economy means more to defend so it makes sense they will spend more.
    1
  73. "Also I find it interesting that you talk about "since WWII" when talking about government spending but then talking about "since 1960", when talking about defense spending." Because defense spending maxed out in 1960. Federal government spending dropped after WWII to 14% and was the lowest point and went up since then. "Do you have a source for that? " It is called simple math. Add up the GDP of those countries, look at their military spending and add them up. I did it once, you can as well.
    1
  74. Jonathan, to add, our tax revenue has been consistent to around 15 to 20 percent of GDP. The overall GDP has increased. It makes sense for defense spending to go up. You have more soldiers, more advanced technology, more training.
    1
  75. Kyle does not have the intelligence to debate Ben. Kyle just goes on pointless rants designed to appeal to emotions to his ignorant fans. Ben will expose of that quickly.
    1
  76. Kyle needs to debate Crowder first, set the bar low.
    1
  77. Jiren the gray, single payer systems do not work better, especially on the large scale.
    1
  78. "So I guess attorneys who work has public defenders shouldn't be paid? " Arguably they don't have to. Also, you have a right to representation which can be almost anything. It can be another judge or politician, it does not have to be a lawyer and it does not guarantee you anything. What it is supposed to do is allow you to have access to someone with knowledge of the law. As for jurors, if you refuse to go to jury duty you go to jail. So that is force. It doesn't matter if you are paid or not.
    1
  79. gert moelders, it isn't that they don't feel empathy. It is that the left goes to far with it. At the very core the political left is driven on emotions and the political right is driven off of facts and reasoning, especially on economic issues. When you take an economic issues, like poverty, and drive it far enough, those on the left will use emotional phrases and run away from facts and those on the right will be pointing at facts and how giving money away does hurt economic growth. It isn't to say one side is better. We need facts but we are human. But there is a reason why many on the right gives the perception of lacking empathy. It is to counter the left having too much of it.
    1
  80. "Lack of education, it really is that simple." There are a lot of highly educated conservatives. Shapiro has a law degree from Harvard.
    1
  81. How are they inconsistent? As for Chomsky, he called corporations oppressive and coercive. For as bad as Walmart or Johnson and Johnson may be, they have never held a gun to someone's head forcing them to work.
    1
  82. Kyle's point on defense spending is deceptive. If you look at percent of GDP if you combine the GDP of those nations defense spending is around 2.5% of it. The US spends around 3.5% of its GDP on defense.
    1
  83. He isn't wrong. If we cut defense spending by 100% we will still have a deficit. Since 1960 defense spending went from 10% of GDP to around 3%. During that same time SS went from around 2% of GDP to around 5%.
    1
  84. Care to give examples?
    1
  85. At the very core the political right, on economic issues, is driven off of facts and reasoning. The political left is driven off of emotions. You watch Kyle his rants are emotional. That is not to say that the left is wrong. We are human and emotions play a role. But with Kyle it is all emotions. He does recycle the same charts and graphs over and over again without putting them in proper perspective. That is how a radical acts.
    1
  86. A lot of the problems pointed out by leftists are not really problems when you look at them in a different way. For example, wage stagnation. Many point at wage stagnation and look at the CPI inflation method. However, there are around 4 methods of calculating inflation such as the GDP deflator or PCE. When you look at those wages have actually gone up. Also, inflation calculators do not factor in quality. For example, a tire cost more now then in the 70s. But car tires last much longer so in the long run money is saved. That is not to say we should not look at wage stagnation as an issue. That is one area I credit leftists for. They do bring up great points, but they do so with pure emotions. They say "look, wages have been stagnate according to CPI indicators". But fail to look at other variables and reasons.
    1
  87. It isn't about talking fast. Actually listen to what he says.
    1
  88. Defense spending was 10% of GDP in 1960, now it is around 3%. To say it is a waste is not true as it has been shrinking for over 50 years.
    1
  89. "That's a moronic statistic to measure defense spending. " No its not as it is a set comparison to a standard. GDP is going up, defense spending isn't. "When you spend more money on the military than the next 8 nations combined," A very deceptive stat. First off, when you look at percent of GDP and you combine the GDP of all of those nations, they spend around 2.5% of their GDP on defense, we spend 3.5%. Yes, it is higher, but only by a difference of 1%. We spend more on education than Germany, the UK and France combine. Should we cut education spending? Or is it that our GDP is so much larger then them that it only makes sense that we spend more then them combine? "To just compare the percent of GDP that defense spending had 58 years ago with the present is a overly broad, misguided, and down right stupid." But comparing defense spending to 8 combined countries with a fraction of our GDP isn't? France has a GDP that is 1/10 of ours, how can you compare raw dollars at that point. Again, we spend more on education then France, is that bad?
    1
  90. Most people are poor because they are bad with money.
    1
  91. Problem is that the left refuses to accept the other side's position. Watch the video on Clinton vs Cain from 1994 on healthcare and you will see Clinton at least show he understands how a business operates and the challenges they face. Now compare that to how Bernie Sanders treated the hair salon owners from Texas. He did not address her points at all. He did not care about her revenue, how many part time/full time workers she had. Her profit margins, etc. Bernie did not care about her situation. The left lost touch with the common man. And I agree, Kyle sitting there refusing to debate anyone hurts him.
    1
  92. George Bush is an intelligent individual. You don't just become president without being smart. Obama was smart, so is Trump. You may disagree with them but they are smart. Even Christopher Hitchens said Bush was smart.
    1
  93. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA
    1
  94. Jessie, at the core the political right is driven on facts and reasoning and the political left is driven off of emotions on economic issues. That is not to say one side is better. We need facts but we are human. But the reality is the left is driven off of emotions and the right is driven on facts and reasoning.
    1
  95. "Being a religious fanatic is which one , fact or reason ?" Religious fanatics are the radicals on the right. They exist on both sides. Radicals exist on the left as well with SJW and Antifa. Radicals go purely off of emotions. Maybe I should have been more clear. Ignore the radicals and look at people who have intelligence and intellectual thought. On the right people are driven off of facts and reasoning. If you want to point at religious fanatics I can point to SJW on the left.
    1
  96. "Religious fanatics aren't the 'radicals' of the right, they are the fucking base!"   No they aren't. Many people on the right support climate change and the science behind it and most have little care about abortion. Shapiro does not bring up religion in his discussions. " Fact is, anyone who even claims to be intellectual is a rarity on the right, which has demonized intellectualism as 'elitism' for decades." There are a lot on the right who are intellectuals. You are just projecting at that point.
    1
  97. "Dude, it is a fact that the evangelical right was the largest block that voted for Trump. Look it up." Look what up? "It is a fact that the right has demonized quote-unquote elites' for decades." Who? When? "Just two elections ago, Rick Santorum called Obama a 'snob' for wanting to send everyone to college" As a doctoral candidate myself I don't disagree. College is not for everyone. And many degrees are worthless.
    1
  98. "Look up the fact I just offered you so that you might confirm for yourself that is, indeed, a fact. If your indeed a doctoral canddiate, I'd like to imagine that you have a basic understanding of reading comprehension, which leaves 'willful ignorance' as the only reason why you're playing dumb" What do you want me to look up? "I can also offer this; from the 2012 Texas State Republican campaign platform:" Care to give a name? "You think it's not for everyone? Alright, then why shouldn't it be an option? Seriously, if you actually believe that the right is full of intellectuals, giving them an education can only help your cause," Define "education". It comes from more than just college. After a K-12 education one can teach themselves. One does not need college to be educated. You can buy books and read the or read them online. There is more to college than an education. The value of college is developing connections as in professors and colleagues and peers, and showing employers you are willing to invest time and money into a long term goal. Also, it helps you learn life skills such as time and money management. I see why many leftists get a college degree and fail. They have no idea how to approach college. "The only reason to oppose the option is anti-intellectual distrust of an educated populace." There is an argument to be made that "education" can be a form of indoctrination. You can't think for yourself so you need government funded education to do it for you.
    1
  99. What kind of website is "ChristianityToday"? I never heard of it? Also, that does not represent the norm of the political right. Shapiro himself is jewish.
    1
  100. "Well, thanks for proving to me that you don't actually believe in facts. If you actually cared about facts, you wouldn't be playing dumb to avoid looking at a fact that contradicts your worldview." You are not providing me any facts. You are telling me to just look things up on complex issues. "It was the party's platform. So the only name applicable here would be the name of every Texas Republican during the term year of 2012." Every? Really? Care to provide evidence. "Red herring. It doesn't address the point: why shouldn't publicly funded college be an option?" Because there is more to college then just sitting in a classroom and listening to lectures. There is the opportunity to develop connections. Also, it shows employers that you are willing to put in the time and money to achieve a long term goal. You remove that component with "publicly funded college" and thus you make a college degree worth the same as a high school diploma. That is why it is not an option. College is an investment you make in life. You remove the investment part it becomes worthless. "Funny how that shit-head Shapiro managed to make it through Harvard without suffering any indoctrination. " Because he went through Harvard on his own free will and paid himself. It was not publicly funded. "looking for any excuse to deny your peers an education because of an anti-intellectual distrust of an educated populace." I teach at a university and I offer more office hours than most educators. I enjoy educating students and individuals as I support an educated populace. I just understand you can get an education from more than just college. And I understand the true value of a degree.
    1
  101. ""ChristianityToday" is about the evangelical christians who blindly support Trump, just like you. " I did not vote for Trump. Besides that, there are groups who will always vote for one party, like the LGBT__diereawf++ group always votes democrat. What's your point? Trump was carrying the rainbow flag before any democratic president was. In fact, Trump was the first president entering office to support gay marriage. Democrats have done nothing for gay marriage but that group still follows them.
    1
  102. KidLoose, you are making the claim, provide the facts. If I were to do the research I can search anywhere such as Fox News. "Repeating your red herring doesn't stop it from being a red herring. It is still an investment of time and effort. That should satisfy potential employers, and giving more people the power to make that investment, and the opportunity to make those connections, is good for the populace and society." You make it "free" then the degree is worthless. People do not learn money management skills, students will not pick up jobs during college hindering their growth. There is also the argument of lowering the quality as demand will go up. Education is the responsibility of the individual. That is what it comes down to. You make it "free" like K-12 education then it becomes worth as much as a K-12 education. "The only reason anyone should fear educating the populace is because it makes it harder to sell that populace snake-oil." Actually, it will make it easier. That is why the STEM fields in colleges are usually more conservative than the liberal arts.
    1
  103. Expand your chart to 50 years, you will see why there is a defense budget increase.
    1
  104. Jason R, that is not true. Since 1960 defense spending went from 10% of GDP to around 3% of GDP. SS went from around 2% of GDP in 1960 to around 5%.
    1
  105. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/social_security_spending_by_year https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending
    1
  106. He isn't wrong. Welfare programs are were most of the spending comes from. Military spending is less than 20% of our overall budget and is actually Constitutional. Welfare spending keeps growing. Since WWI federal government spending has increased from 14% of GDP to 20% of GDP. Since 1960 defense spending went from 10% of GDP to 3% of GDP.
    1