Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
@brandonsimpson1617 Buddy, check your math, the social services programs, which are supposedly paid by payroll tax is the biggest sort of debt increase.
The military cost 700 billions, an that's to protect the freedom of the entire world. Military in Japan, Europe was put in place after WW2 so that no other nation can have a solid military force, big enough to wage war again. So yeah, military is a necessity spending, 75 millions death in the last world war is more than enough of a reason to spend for military.
And the number for social services? In 2018, the collected payroll tax is 1.2 trillion, but the actual spending for social services, which are supposed to be paid by the payroll tax, is actually 1.8 trillion.
So yeah, we can see which programs increase the debt, it's probably the programs that cost more than what we have.
And the feds started printing never added the debt, most of the national debt are in dollars, so if the feds want to print money, that would cause inflation on products but not on the debts, because the debts are still in dollars, we can print more dollars, and one dollar we print more is the same as one dollar we owe. The point is that after we print more money, prices will spike, we can cheat the game just like China, but we don't do that. Because we have more civility.
And my tax dollars which went to well fare almost never went to a struggling family, in the most exceptional case, maybe a family that does well fare actually needs it. In most case, it went to people who are taking advantage of the system, you can see them protesting for free money on the street. 47% of the people pays no income tax, but still gets free services from the government. You're arguing that 47% of the people is struggling? That 47% of the working population, which is 100 millions people are struggling?Or is it they're taking advantage of the system? Their payroll tax doesn't pay their payroll cost at all. I just pointed out.
So yeah, pal, you need to check the actual number, study the real theory and action behind it.
You're way over your head currently, study more.
The national debt is increased the most by social programs, look at the number, and the fed printing money causes inflation but it shall reduce the debt.
For example, if the fed print 20 trillion dollars tomorrow, the inflation rate shall spike by 2000%, but all the debt would be paid because the debt is in dollars. So if the fed print money to pay for the debt, it will cause hyper-inflation but it will does nothing to increase the debt. Of course, we don't do that because it will cause hype-inflation and that is very bad. Study more, pal.
1
-
@brandonsimpson1617 I'm pretty sure that 47% of the population is currently doing on welfare.
It's in the numbers, if 47% of the people are not paying any tax besides payroll tax, and you can only do that if you have low earning jobs, it will be a certainty that they shall use social programs in the future. and it's also a certainty that program which they will use, will not be paid for by them, because the current program is that the people pay now to spend on later in their life. The current tax for welfare program now is coming from their pocket, but it's not enough, actual welfare spending is 1.8 trillion, tax collected for welfare is 1.2 trillion. Do the simple math, pal. In the future, this number will spike, due to how more and more people shall be using the programs.
But the current rate is not enough to pay for the current number of users. So unless you're paying income tax, there is no chance that you can actually pay for what you will receive.
Clear?
It's not propaganda, it's fact, when you can not collect enough money to pay for what you spend, other people's money have to cover for you if you want to spend. And by law, somehow, welfare is a "must-spend", despite it shall never be paid for fully, it's justification for stealing.
And the interest put on by the feds, explain how that add to the debt. Go ahead, the fed doesn't control the interest rates on treasury bills.
And if the interest rates are too high for you to pay, you need to stop spending. How about starting with something you can never pay for? Welfare.
47%, pal, it's not propaganda, it's fact. What is your bubble? Everybody pays tax and we're in debt due to the military?
Yeah, nice bubble, it's just not reality. Military spending is the essence of federal spending, they're one of the few things that the government is built to sustain.
Even socialist countries spend on military.
And every year, the number of money not collected through payroll tax but is paid into welfare, it's about another military for the US. So, no, the numbers are exceptionally clear. The welfare is a death trap, you shall never be able to collect what you will be force to pay out, and it shall increase indefinitely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abhikahuja3773 She was chosen to represent the public, by definition, the public also vested her the right of using her own belief as a measure of the public if she deemed so. She abstained.
And Berkeley idiots, not being harassed isn't a right, but the first amendment purpose is not to let you say whatever every single kind of stupid and vial things possible. That's just abusing the law loopholes.
Consequences is one thing, extreme reaction based on moronic judgement, false ideology, no logic is not consequence, it's stupidity. It's immoral, unless you're saying immoral and stupidity is okay just because it's protected by the law? Go back to school, if you're going to Berkeley to learn social sciences, switch now while you still can, at least think a bit.
1
-
1
-
@UC0Rl7bQFO7OLSTZUGgtOuUg And there, done, your logic crumbled right there. If you have the right to say anything like your previous argument in how the students can react to her Christian belief just because they want to, it hurts her the same way somebody feel sad about being "harassed" sexually.
Now is that their fault for feeling bad or is the people's fault for speaking legally, in any sort logic, if sexually harassment is wrong, then the extreme action of people insulting her without reasons is also very wrong.
Not to say that any criticism or sexually oriented comment is wrong, no that's not how it works, if a person can justify their comments with logic and sensible reasons then it is justified, that's how law and order is built.
But like I said, before, it's wrong morally, not wrong legally, sexual harassment is a propaganda term, it's defined based on the subject aka the person being talked about, if the definition varies, any law relating to that is in some way very confusing and unclear, full of holes. You don't need to wait for consent before speaking, pal, any lawyer who defend in court will destroy that argument into pieces.
Berkeley is ranked very high by who? An unknown organization with unknown justification, unknown reasons? The sub prime mortgage bond was also ranked very high, they caused a global economy crisis.
Like I said before, judge things using your mind, otherwise you're gambling using your perception of the world.
Berkeley student isn't smart, they're highly skilled, anybody above average can do that with the right amount of training, most students from Asia will destroy you in computer science, math, physics, anything academically related. The only exception is that you're located in America, full of resources.
Here's the simple truth, science-wise, computer science, math, anything relating to calculations and equations, Berkeley might be the top, even though it is not clear what is the top because the result of alumnis are due to the alumnis themselves, not the school.,
Social science-wise, Berkeley is a hell hole, full of idiots who know nothing except their own opinion.
1
-
1
-
@Sylvertaco What voters? By that logic of mob rule then should 50,1% of the population don't have to do anything and just vote for 99% tax on the people who does things?
Democracies like that can only work in a perfect society where everybody works the same, contribute the same, DESERVE the same.
There's a thing called ethic, study pal, the current situation is already heavily unfair, somehow the top 1% is paying for 40% of the country, they're taking a loss, it's basically forced slavery, but they have no choice, without them, the country will fail.
But look yourself in the mirror and ask, is it stealing, because it obviously is.
The rich are sacrificing themselves and the ungrateful brats are keep going, it's called immoral, stupidity.
Voting doesn't decide ethics, in this case, the ethics are so clear, but people are just looking away.
An example, why don't you, in your community, pay out 27 times the fees of others?
1
-
1
-
@Sylvertaco
again, pal, you're living in a bubble again, they're not students anymore, legally they drink, they waste money, they waste time. If a person over 18 drunk driving and kill somebody, he'll go to jail. So unless you want to push the age to maybe 25, then your vision is totally crazy.
Groups pushing student loans are called governments, the loans aren't bad, the point is that the kid wasted the loans, you wasted money then it's the fault of the person who lend you money? Think a bit.
Self made individuals are from real life, moron, wants a clue? Look at the rise of millionaires. Idiot.
And the argument of stupidity, again, it's false, pal, even with the correct information, the stupid people can't make decisions, want a clue? They're called the left, when a person looses an argument with all the facts given to them beforehand, it's because they believe in a distorted version of the truth, which makes them stupid. For example you, I just pointed it out.
People working in major tech companies,
Pal, don't blame others just because you're pathetic, it's called ethics, study.
Restrictions put on choices? So you're saying that mature people can't take loans anymore? Or you're saying that student loans need to have guaranteed asset, which is the old ways which the liberals promising free money for all removed and replaced with this current broken system?
If you don't have a single argument, pal, it's better to stay quiet. You're just nitpicking pieces and ignore parts that you were destroyed.
1
-
@Sylvertaco
pal, are you a troll?
Like I said, stop nitpicking parts of the argument, you've been destroyed, even the nitpick is horrible.
Push the age to 25 means the age of taking responsibility to your action, pal, people under 18 aren't considered adults, but people are above 18, taking loans and such needs to have responsibility. Stop trolling around.
The people giving out loans, as I pointed out, are liberals. They want free money, no guaranteed asset, it's fraudulent, but they still do it. So either you admit that the policy is wrong, therefore crumbling your own argument of backing up massive governmental action on the public funding, or crumbling your own argument of how people are not stupid. So either way, you lose, nice try.
Promoting self made individuals aren't idealistic, if you had went to school, the would've taught you that, that's why people go yo school, pal.
I just gave you the argument and you ignored it and pretend like no argument, pal, if you're a troll, I suggest going to a macdonalds ad, not here.
Go back to school, small time troll, you have no argument, you ignore facts when given to you because it burst your little bubble, go back to school, pathetic troll.
When you've been destroyed, don't pretend that you're winning, it's not gonna work. Pathetic.
1
-
@Sylvertaco Okay, you troll, like I said, don't pretend as such you're winning when you've been destroyed.
The first obvious nitpick you make is when asserting that "people" are not stupid, I made the point of people being stupid to debunked your assumption of mob ruling will never go bad, given the example of how student loans are going down because people are making mistakes one their own.
You claiming that because they're "students" despite them all being over 18 then it's not their fault but the fault of people who gives the loan.
This argument of yours contradict the initial reply of saying that policies giving out taxpayers money are made due to the voting so it's never wrong. Who do you think give out the loans, kid?
Government gives out student loans, it's not their money to give out, the policy is reckless, but it's made due to voting. So is the policy wrong or correct?
You say that people giving out loans needs to take responsibility because students are stupid, while the same time saying that policies of giving out the loans will never go bad because people aren't stupid. Read, kid. Yeah, it's not actually nitpicking, it's just stupid argument.
Banks don't give out student loans, kid, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3QSHVNDlaM
Here, nice try. Too much reality for you?
And another nitpicking you did was on the sentence: "Promoting self made individuals aren't idealistic, if you had went to school, they would've taught you that"
Your assumption that this sentence means everything being taught in school is correct is nitpicking, it's also stupid interpretation, self made individuals are good examples happen to be taught in school, it doesn't mean everything taught in school are great.
Clear, kid?
We can keep doing this where I destroyed your arguments and you keep pretending that you've destroyed mine, despite it's obviously not because you don't even know that student loans aren't given out by the banks, so,
If you want to troll, go to a MacDonald's ad.
1
-
@Sylvertaco Nice try, kid, you can't just type long sentence to save your ass, just pathetic.
Policies giving away money is what the majority wants, but then you also say that the policy is wrong, so despite knowing that it's wrong, your argument for it is mob rule majority.
The basic is that you don't have any point of argument. What are you arguing for kid?
And banks can not give out student loans, your Google search skill is pathetic, I just gave you a clip of how large banks confirm that they don't do students loans. The majority of those loans are by policies giving away free money, by the government, you moron. That's what majority wants , and the policy is just wrong.
So your argument is the policy is wrong but that's what the majority mob wants and that's okay?
Go back to school, little troll.
You don't have any logic, you don't have a point to argue for it's just nitpicking, go back to school, little troll.
What Google search shows that. The overwhelming majority of student loans are made by any factors other than the government? Give a link, pathetic moron. You can't even do a simple search, that's not stupidity?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ralphbernhard1757 First off, kid, she did abstain, watch the video.
And next, separation of church and state means not letting values of the church to dictate the decision of the state. As in how you can't put in religion based laws and regulation. However, the state is also a organization based on the vote. If the people voted her even with her religious belief, like I said, she is vested the power to use her judgement, her belief as a representation of the people.
You need to study long and hard before talking nonsense, the right of liberty, in this case, hers is being infringed upon. You intentionally ignored that part or what?
Her religious view is protected by the same right, specifically the right of liberty. If she doesn't write any bill dictate her religious beliefs on anybody then she is fully capable of using the right of liberty to deem what she think is correct and represent the people who voted for her using that belief.
What kind of right is to dictate LGBT nonsense on people? Forcing views, agenda upon people like what the bill is doing, is actually violating the principles.
Separation of church and state isn't just with Christian, it's also with any crazy cult. You can't make up gender and "identity" and then force it upon other people.
Go back to school, pal, think a bit, do some research.
1
-
@ralphbernhard1757 First off, kid. She abstained, that's finished with whatever roles you can loosely interpret based on politics.
If the bill had passed, the first right being restricted is the right of liberty. Liberty of believing in what she believes and the inability to promote that belief. The bill says to "promote" LGBT nonsense, that's the first nonsense, you can't force people to promote something based on nothing.
There's a major difference between discrimination and simply deeming something invalid, kid. LGBT nonsense is fact, you can't just make up gender just because you feel like it.
No science in the world ever proved or studied into what those derogatory are, if a crazy cut himself and then claim that he is only attracted to people who are equally attracted into people who have scars? You would call him what? A "scar" something. Kid,
Moron, her right is the right of religious freedom, to believe whatever she wants to believe, LGBT nonsense have the same right, you can see them screaming it at people's face. But the bill infringe on the liberty of people who don't believe in LGBT nonsense. There is no bill promoting Christian Value.
Here's a clue, kid, you're a moron who has no knowledge of what you're talking about. My advice? Go back to school.
1
-
@ralphbernhard1757 Great, that's your concern, you have the right to call Christian crazy, they have the right to call LGBT crazy. That's your right of liberty.
What infringe it is the action of using government to promote any of the two. Clear?
Bake a cake thing was ruled in favor of the baker, the Baker sell cake, the gay people ask for gay cake, you can't force that.
If a person ask for gay gasoline, as in maybe gasoline that requires special procedures, they will be refused, too.
Learn the law, kid. And arguments are opinion supported with facts and logic.
That makes my argument valid and your argument trash. Clear?
Go back to school, you already lost.
1
-
@ralphbernhard1757 Who said that we're winning? We have to keep fighting with morons lile you, otherwise we will be defeated.
There are discrimination, and laws preventing them applies to all, but distinguish between law that protects you and abusing the law to attack people.
Like I said, logic that can't be penetrated. Crazy LGBT nonsense can believe whatever they believe, but they can't force people to promote it.
You can't force a tailor to make you a wedding suit specifically embroidered with gay promoting messaging if he doesn't want to. The same way you can't force people to report gay news just because you're gay. Idiot, get out of the bubble kid.
You think it's okay to be crazy, making up 40 genders based on feeling. I don't, act according to the law, and you're violating it by promoting your opinion using governmental act. Study, kid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1