Watch out you're gonna get an IP Ban from Steven 'I read one "Professional" opinion on economic policy and broadcast it as indisputable fact to my audience' Bonnell... Love him when it comes to Social Issues... But holy fucking christ, he needs to expand his citation list... I want 2016 Destiny back....
I've watched every one of Sam's debates with Libertarians. I've loved them. He's crushed so many. But he was so unbelievably stupid arguing that the U.S. government could simply wipe it's debt. He clearly does not understand the issue at all. Even though 70% of the debt is owned by Americans and 30% (within the 70, a 40-30 split) is owned by other government entities it simply can not just be wiped off like a simple accounting trick. The entities that own this debt are social security trust fund, retirement fund for federal workers, U.S. military pension funds, state governments for their public workers' retirement and pension funds, Medicare and Medicaid own significant amounts, and the debt owned by the American public is retirement accounts, mutual funds, university endowment funds, union retirement funds, and yes some is just owned by wealthy investors, banks and insurance companies. This is real debt owned by real people and real agencies who have invested their often hard earned money into what they believed was a safe and reliable medium to keep their money growing a bit faster than inflation rather than devaluing. People depend on the interest from these investments to live off of, or agencies depend on it to make their pension payouts, insurance payouts, etc. If the U.S. defaults it crushes the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. Sam is an idiot for this one. There is no defaulting possible without a MASSIVE transfer of wealth away from just about every single American who has any sort of saving whatsoever (unless it's just gold or cash under the mattress). And even suppose the federal government said fuck it. Let's just do it. Fuck everyone. It STILL wouldn't be SUSTAINABLE like Sam said it would because literally no one would ever lend them money again. Then the U.S. government would be forced to spend within their budget and never run a deficit ever again. And while this may sound good to some, it quickly becomes a nightmare when a recession hits, a major ecological disaster happens or a war (I'm antiwar, but maybe one day there will be a defensive war again like WW2) and the U.S. will be fucked and unable to respond quickly or fluidly but have to hold debates in Congress and raise taxes, start collecting money and wait until there is a surplus in the coffers to spend. Either that or maintain a massive emergency account which would require running a budget surplus for several years to save in preparation. This was not your finest moment Sam. You embarrassed yourself. This isn't just some magical accounting debt that only exists in some ethereal ledger somewhere that the government can just wipe consequence free. Every dollar wiped would have just as big of an impact as a dollar taxed. You might as well be arguing for a one-time 22 trillion dollar tax on the public. The effect is literally equivalent. Note: I fully support Medicare for all, universal tuition free public college, social security expansion, government guaranteed maternity/paternity leave, government backed childcare, etc. All of these programs are fully achievable through the correct balance of cutting current spending (military, mass incarceration and associated policing/court expenses, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, cutting all corporate subsidies) and raising taxes which will mostly be offset, and in some cases more than completely offset, by the resulting savings in private expenditures. We do not need to create some magical and fictitious accounting trick to save us, like Sam ignorantly tried to do here. These programs are attainable if we just choose to prioritize them.
@@ericbilodeau8526 I agree. We don't need to cheat the system. We have the means to allocate taxes, raise taxes, and negotiate prices to achieve the goals we have, and probably cost effectively.
@@ericbilodeau8526 well said, I also think libertarians and those with your views see eye to eye on a majority of issues taht can be tackled “easily” by dismantling the establishment.
@@WillBravoNotEvil do you mean Rohm Burgundy? ...is what I would say if the caller was in the democratic party. Look... the joke _would have_ worked, ok? 😏
He was, indeed. And while joking and being flippant for the first ten minutes, Sam still destroyed his ideas (note: anytime "ideas" is written, Michael's Dave impression needs to be mentioned). When he got more serious towards the end, he slayed him like a dragon. What an absolutely embarrassing party. At least they're less racist than Reich-winged Republicans. To this (idiot) guy's credit, he wasn't a faux Libertarian like Rand/Ron Paul. He condemned the Yemeni slaughter, mass incarceration and deadly white supremacy. However, Sam made him look like an absolute fool that he is.
@HKZ P Not true. It wouldn't be a punitive tax, like so many see contemporary taxes. Since most of the money goes to already-rich/well funded programs, and not to programs the working-class desperately need. If a family of four's premiums, deductibles and coinsurances are $50,000 per year, but their taxes only go up by $10,000 per year, they're saving a net of $40,000. Saying taxes will go up without saying it'll net save them money is incredibly misleading. It's not that hard to think about. Why do the largest insurers offer, usually, the best coverage and relatively "affordable" (in the healthcare industry vacuum)? Because they have the largest pool of people. Yet, if an entire country were under one-plan, I hope you realize how much money that'd save. Same with the fact they'd have to negotiate drug prices, etc. Everything Bernie has proposed is moderate-at-worst. This "he's ultra left" is nonsense. What should happen under a Sanders two-term presidency is the following: first four years, take care of all the most pressing issues like curbing climate catastrophe, M4A, universal public college, student debt relief, $15/hour (though it should be at least $20/hour, but I digress), etc., that'd be a great first-term -- assuming they flip the Senate. (Another reason why Sanders NEEDS to be the nominee; he'll help so many down-ticket candidates to make his plans more feasible.) But in the second term, there should be a mass reparations bill. In the trillions of dollars, funded solely by the capitalists that systematically stole from the working class over the last 100+ years. Obviously, black people would get a large chunk, especially if they're direct defendants of slaves. In reality, though, I don't like how Sanders side-steps reparations questions. Yes, they are a bit "gotcha questions," but that's all corporate media. I also understand he understands the country is extraordinarily racist, so it's likely strategic. However, as badly as black folks badly need $1 trillion+ in cash reparations, so does the rest of the working class screwed over by the "owners" of the country. They've stolen untold trillions of dollars from us for far too long. I'm sure a very basic study could come up with a number. The ruling-class, of course, would oppose it, using CNN et al as their conduits. In reality, we have the money to do all this. I really don't think people realize just how much money is in this country -- hell, just the cash in DE would be enough to fund many of these "far left" programs. And, as a strategic measure, it would make reparations a word for whites and blacks (and Asians and Hispanics) instead of a divisive issue for racists. I highly doubt even Sanders would do such a proposal, but it'd be worth it. To your quantitative easing vs. letting the debt go, Sam is more correct, I'd say. I don't want to write another novella, so I'll just keep it at that. "THE SCARY DEBT" is the most overrated, nonsensical fear-mongering economic tactic the Right uses. All these programs would make the ruling class less powerful, the society more democratic and closer to a legitimate country of solidarity. Although, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates would likely only be able to live off a paltry $50 billion instead of $100-150 billion. We need to "criminalize" capitalism via "fines."
I've watched every one of Sam's debates with Libertarians. I've loved them. He's crushed so many. But he was so unbelievably stupid arguing that the U.S. government could simply wipe it's debt. He clearly does not understand the issue at all. Even though 70% of the debt is owned by Americans and 30% (within the 70, a 40-30 split) is owned by other government entities it simply can not just be wiped off like a simple accounting trick. The entities that own this debt are social security trust fund, retirement fund for federal workers, U.S. military pension funds, state governments for their public workers' retirement and pension funds, Medicare and Medicaid own significant amounts, and the debt owned by the American public is retirement accounts, mutual funds, university endowment funds, union retirement funds, and yes some is just owned by wealthy investors, banks and insurance companies. This is real debt owned by real people and real agencies who have invested their often hard earned money into what they believed was a safe and reliable medium to keep their money growing a bit faster than inflation rather than devaluing. People depend on the interest from these investments to live off of, or agencies depend on it to make their pension payouts, insurance payouts, etc. If the U.S. defaults it crushes the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. Sam is an idiot for this one. There is no defaulting possible without a MASSIVE transfer of wealth away from just about every single American who has any sort of saving whatsoever (unless it's just gold or cash under the mattress). And even suppose the federal government said fuck it. Let's just do it. Fuck everyone. It STILL wouldn't be SUSTAINABLE like Sam said it would because literally no one would ever lend them money again. Then the U.S. government would be forced to spend within their budget and never run a deficit ever again. And while this may sound good to some, it quickly becomes a nightmare when a recession hits, a major ecological disaster happens or a war (I'm antiwar, but maybe one day there will be a defensive war again like WW2) and the U.S. will be fucked and unable to respond quickly or fluidly but have to hold debates in Congress and raise taxes, start collecting money and wait until there is a surplus in the coffers to spend. Either that or maintain a massive emergency account which would require running a budget surplus for several years to save in preparation. This was not your finest moment Sam. You embarrassed yourself. This isn't just some magical accounting debt that only exists in some ethereal ledger somewhere that the government can just wipe consequence free. Every dollar wiped would have just as big of an impact as a dollar taxed. You might as well be arguing for a one-time 22 trillion dollar tax on the public. The effect is literally equivalent. Note: I fully support Medicare for all, universal tuition free public college, social security expansion, government guaranteed maternity/paternity leave, government backed childcare, etc. All of these programs are fully achievable through the correct balance of cutting current spending (military, mass incarceration and associated policing/court expenses, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, cutting all corporate subsidies) and raising taxes which will mostly be offset, and in some cases more than completely offset, by the resulting savings in private expenditures. We do not need to create some magical and fictitious accounting trick to save us, like Sam ignorantly tried to do here. These programs are attainable if we just choose to prioritize them.
@J P Modern Libertarian principals are not immutable laws. Even communist and socialist thought has evolved...I guess Libertarianism is like Star Wars fandom. A lot of us go through that phase, but most age out when better options are presented. I know I've moved on from the idea of fantasy westerns... and Star Wars.
@J P Define your terms. Both"human nature" and "natural law" have changed meaning over millennia as we have gained more knowledge and insight. They could mean literally anything, and so they are meaningless. And to think that there is nothing new under the sun suggests there is no relationship between a person and their external environment. There has been a doubling of population growth and life spans in the past 60 years, along with the ability for cross-cultural communication, while at the same time exploiting the resources of the earth in ways it cannot recover naturally. Both in an individual level and a social one, we are living contradictions, even when it comes to our own self interests... What is a specific principal that you believe Libertarians have right? Or better yet, what is one that Sam has not successfully argued against?
Sam does not even know how statebonds work, and that he advocate make them junkbonds with stupid policies. Then the endresult is nobody buys the bonds, and all services stops, and you have government shutdown. Talk about screwing yourselves.
@@henrygustav7948 The US treasury issues the bonds, it does not hold them. You got it backwards. And Sam apparently got it backwards. You must be conflating it with social security, pension funds, etc, or with the federal reserves. The federal reserves hold bonds worth 6 trillion. You leftists conflate terms, and do not understand anything. And defaulting on loans have an effect no matter what, bankrupting the federal reserve has a cost.
@@dnciskkk9037 you guys love to make it about left or right. US Federal govt is monetarily sovereign and can not go bankrupt. Bonds and Federal taxation don't fund Fed govt expenditures and its impossible to default, why? Because the US Fed govt issues the currency. Constitution article 1 section 8.
Poor thing is afraid she's going to lose her job _and_ has never been satisfied by her husband, according to her husband. Poor gal. Edit: Booty Eater, maybe you can help her out.
Most of the foreign debt. Just like progressives cant figure out that insurance doesnt save or kill people. And satisfaction surveys are not health outcomes. And military spending is the largest part of ONLY discretionary spending.
Libitarian guy: now come on sam we should look at cost not polls Sam: well due to economies of scale it is bascially impossible to cost more Libitarian guy: come on Sam there cost but we need to talk about the polls 🤦♂️
Y'know I respect this guy a lot more than your typical republican, but they're still not being logically consistent. The correct answer to the medicare for all issue is "that's government and I don't like it so I'm against it". That's it. Forget every point he tried to bring up and was wrong about, just stick to what you actually believe in and be consistent.
They don't even need to say that. They can just say that people should have the freedom to choose what they spend their own money on, if they want to die from lack of healthcare that's their personal right. "I don't like government so don't like Medicare for all" is phrasing it as a leftist.
Former free market libertarian here, when it came to universal healthcare or other issues where libertarian “logic” was so obviously wrong, I remember engaging in tons and tons of motivated reasoning just to be able to continue holding my position that the free market works for healthcare, because with libertarians, if the free market fails at anything that means it fails at everything and the whole “philosophy” falls apart
You really have to do mental gymnastics and redefine others to be able to defend you positions, very sad. Libertarians are very worried about financial collapse. Fiscal responsibility is at the core of everything. Adding 3 trillion to a budget of 3,5 trillion, is just plain insanity, and irresponsible childs play.
Why would you respect this guy? Libertarianism in the U.S. is just a distraction created by a couple of billionaires who know it's not serious but through it, they try to get support for deregulatory practices of the republican party because a libertarian reality is just not an actual reality and these guys all know it; so the reason this guy holds this position for a joke party is the money he gets to play the role. So he is absolutely ingenuine.
@HKZ P What you're failing to consider is that argentine peso doesn't resemble the usd in any way, nor does the history of the argentine economy have any relationship
The fact that the whole libertarian economic argument could be destroyed by asking how they would build the streets makes it very sad. (They always respond with a collective where each one of them pays a little amount of money [basically taxes])
I thought the libertarian response to the streets argument was "ah yes, the old 'who will build the streets argument!'," followed by changing the subject.
My big issue with Libertarians is that they have this apple-pie attitude that all you need to do in life is work hard and nothing else matters. Yes, yes, working hard is important and no one is saying you shouldn't. But mature people are beyond that point. We are smart enough to realize that not everyone will have equal access to the same opportunities. Or, at least, the opportunities are harder to come by. So, some people have to work even harder "disabled, poor, non-white people:. Of course you should work hard and do the best you can to make a better life for yourself. Back in the day, that would fall under a "duuuuh" statement. But it doesn't change the fact that some groups have better advantages and we should try and work to fix that. @@xbsdbsdbx
My lecturer in university once said 'Libertarians are a lot like cats, they think they're independent but they don't realise you're actually taking care of them the whole time'
Just the opposite. We are realistic about the abuse of government power. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." --Lord Byron Acton
I've watched every one of Sam's debates with Libertarians. I've loved them. He's crushed so many. But he was so unbelievably stupid arguing that the U.S. government could simply wipe it's debt. He clearly does not understand the issue at all. Even though 70% of the debt is owned by Americans and 30% (within the 70, a 40-30 split) is owned by other government entities it simply can not just be wiped off like a simple accounting trick. The entities that own this debt are social security trust fund, retirement fund for federal workers, U.S. military pension funds, state governments for their public workers' retirement and pension funds, Medicare and Medicaid own significant amounts, and the debt owned by the American public is retirement accounts, mutual funds, university endowment funds, union retirement funds, and yes some is just owned by wealthy investors, banks and insurance companies. This is real debt owned by real people and real agencies who have invested their often hard earned money into what they believed was a safe and reliable medium to keep their money growing a bit faster than inflation rather than devaluing. People depend on the interest from these investments to live off of, or agencies depend on it to make their pension payouts, insurance payouts, etc. If the U.S. defaults it crushes the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. Sam is an idiot for this one. There is no defaulting possible without a MASSIVE transfer of wealth away from just about every single American who has any sort of saving whatsoever (unless it's just gold or cash under the mattress). And even suppose the federal government said fuck it. Let's just do it. Fuck everyone. It STILL wouldn't be SUSTAINABLE like Sam said it would because literally no one would ever lend them money again. Then the U.S. government would be forced to spend within their budget and never run a deficit ever again. And while this may sound good to some, it quickly becomes a nightmare when a recession hits, a major ecological disaster happens or a war (I'm antiwar, but maybe one day there will be a defensive war again like WW2) and the U.S. will be fucked and unable to respond quickly or fluidly but have to hold debates in Congress and raise taxes, start collecting money and wait until there is a surplus in the coffers to spend. Either that or maintain a massive emergency account which would require running a budget surplus for several years to save in preparation. This was not your finest moment Sam. You embarrassed yourself. This isn't just some magical accounting debt that only exists in some ethereal ledger somewhere that the government can just wipe consequence free. Every dollar wiped would have just as big of an impact as a dollar taxed. You might as well be arguing for a one-time 22 trillion dollar tax on the public. The effect is literally equivalent. Note: I fully support Medicare for all, universal tuition free public college, social security expansion, government guaranteed maternity/paternity leave, government backed childcare, etc. All of these programs are fully achievable through the correct balance of cutting current spending (military, mass incarceration and associated policing/court expenses, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, cutting all corporate subsidies) and raising taxes which will mostly be offset, and in some cases more than completely offset, by the resulting savings in private expenditures. We do not need to create some magical and fictitious accounting trick to save us, like Sam ignorantly tried to do here. These programs are attainable if we just choose to prioritize them.
@@ScribeLur , He does a poor job of entertaining leftists... he requires people to go over his statements to make sense out of them. Poor Rubin.. cursed to be a terrible comedian. :(
This is amazing. I've never seen someone so logically debunk other persons talking points through factual evidence. Sam really understands monetary policy in a much deeper way than I've heard before. Incredible job.
Sam has been in this game for a long time, long before the quality of political debate took a sharp nosedive and never recovered. It's also why his comedy is so effective.
@@snesntmlnial9790 yeah i just never found seinfeld funny at all, he always came off really hacky and the other chucklefuks like kramer just annoyed me. i'll re-watch some bill hicks or martin lawrence though, and I like a lot of the other big names.
@thesparitan What if - by virtue of libertarian ideas and pure, good ol' fashioned elbow grease - a libertarian becomes so wealthy as to become part of the aristocracy? I think I got him!
I live in the UK and the NHS was doing great until the 1990s. It’s been a slippery slope of stealth privatization, and, especially since Conservative party austerity in 2010, spending cuts.
Yes, Richard Wolff talked about this on TMBS (You should check it out!). The purpose is to cut popular programs in order to make them seem nonfunctioning at their core in order to cut and gut even more.
Libertarian doofus: “Use this metric.” Sam: “Excellent. By that metric my ideas stack up extraordinarily well!” Doofus: “No use this other metric!” Sam: “My ideas hold up under that as well!” Doofus: “Nevermind, go back to the other one!” This whole conversation in a nutshell.
7:55 Libertarians: "The individual always know what's the best policy for themselves." Sam: "individual polling shows that people love socialized medicine." Libertarian: "Huh, actually, policy wonks know what's best, individuals don't have the full picture."
Libertarians usually don’t, mainly because of the suspicion that google is being artificially propped up through artificial regulations and restrictions on market trade, reducing competition and barrier to entry into the market. Libertarians will defend monopolies if they naturally form because the monopoly was formed due to consumer choices and because competition can always spring up to provide a better good or service.
@J P google is a democracy? Cool when do I get to vote on Google's corporate policies, leadership, which projects Google will fund and how Google's finances are distributed?
@J P saying a "free market" is democratic doesn't make it so. If workers don't democratically make decisions in their workplace, really its just a a series of oligarchies and autocracies that people can choose from.
Borrowing 400 billions to pay interest on your existing debt, is kind of an issue. If the debt remain the same over 10 years, that is 4 trillion wasted. And if you add 30 trillion to the debt over 10 years, it will be a trillion dollars a year in interest with current interestrates, but they will not stay the same. If you double your debt and it becomes to big percentage of GDP, then interestrates will skyrocket. and you are talking new debt with double or triple interest rates. Running new creditcards to pay down old creditcard debt has never worked.
@@dnciskkk9037 Who receives the interest payments? The interest payments are an income flow to the nongovernment sector, just as social security checks are an income flow to the nongovernment sector; these payments increase the wealth of the nongovernment sector. Some of the bonds are held by foreigners, but how did the foreigners get the dollars to purchase the bonds? They traded their goods for them - fair and square. Now we have the goods and they have the bonds (which are the saving account version of dollars). That is how trade works. The government is not a household!
@@robertjenkins6132 You clearly do not understand it, and desperately try to argue for irresponsible freebies, disregarding every fact,. Issued bonds yield interest that must be paid with US dollars, and it must be printed or produced by selling more bonds. , AKA passing the bill off to your kids. Don't pretend like you know how much is held by federal agancies and others, and it is irrelevant, it must be paid. You try to pivot of the issue. And don't bring trading goods into this. Must I explain the basics to you, countries have companies, that export and import, countries need tradesurplus to run green numbers, or high taxes, or must sell their own bonds to fund the red numbers, just like USA. Countries that have surplus do not want pressure in their economy, and buy statebonds from other nations to balance the budget. Countries are very much like investmentbanks in that regard. You issue bonds with a lower interest rate to buy bonds with a higher yield, that is free money. My country did that with USA and Greece in both their biggest crises and made out like bandits. Greek bonds was dumped at 40 cents on the dollar, and our pensionfund took a gamble, knowing EU would bail them out. You have to understand the difference between companies and country, you cannot argue that USA sells bonds and germany pay with BMWs and apfelstrudel.
That was embarrassing, I'm on Sam Sedar's side here but 10 minutes into this I was starting to root for Nicholas to do better just because I felt so bad for him. So one sided
What was he unprepared on? Sam had not prepared, his staff had printed out some talking points from imbecils, and was wrong on everything. What a simpleton, when will he grow a brain, and when will he bother preparing for his show. He does not seem to put in any effort and is just slacking.
Wayne Paul he seemed to have more awareness of the tougher questions is my point. But the efficiency and cost savings of single payer is pretty common knowledge.
*Libertarianism* The politics of angry teenage boys whose mothers won't leave them alone, don't want any responsibility and thinks giving a damn about people isn't cool.
@@ryry7886 No, because paying into a communal pot is the only realistic way for most people to afford decent infrastructure, health care, education and retirement plans. Being a tight wad doesn't say much about caring for others, either.
@@redlightmax Sam often puts people in these positions to acknowledge an irrefutable truth about the society we live in and they get this ego about it because its in that moment they know he's about to dismantle the entire argument. If libertarians were just honest and to the point about how little they give a fuck about other people, it would actually help their argument a bit. They try to paint it like they want what's best for everyone and that's simply not what their ideology suggests.
I'm not quite sure how the VA is performing in other, more conservative regions of the country, although we' ve all heard the accounts of long waiting lists for recent-era vets and about the condition of some VA facilities, but I've been getting VA healthcare in CA since 1974 and have always had a superb, truly caring experience.
Sam needs to say "Single payer national health insurance", because that's specific to Medicare for All. When he says "single payer", he's being unclear, because that applies to both the NHS and Medicare for All. The NHS is Single Payer National Health System..
The problem with libertarianism is that it wrongly starts from a faulty philosophical framework first and then tries to make policy decisions from there, meanwhile, not realizing that their philosophy is based on a completely fallacious premise to begin with which is why it always leads to horribly thought out policy proposals. Nevermind the fact that history and real world outcomes prove otherwise and should be looked at and understood first, but is completely ignored instead. How they do not see this flaw is beyond me.
OK, I normally support Sam, but no, the US cannot simply default with no consequences. There would be HUGE consequences. The US dollar would drop to near-worthlessness and it would start a worldwide economic catastrophe. What you should have told this idiot is that single-payer healthcare produces better results for LESS money.
A basic fact that all libertarians need to ignore if their going to make their preffered argument is that "single payer cost LESS than our private systems in every major country in the world."
@@PK-on9vj they were until 2002. In fact the main reason for creating the Euro was to stop the mmt like policies that countries chronically applied with devastating medium and long term consequences
David Owens all I saw was someone who was prepared/good at debating vs someone who was not prepared good at debating. If he destroys someone like Gary Johnson I would be more impressed.
With the Medicaid expansion, something like 1.2 million more jobs were created. And almost every single doctor accepts Medicaid. So the theory of job loss and doctors quitting just doesnt even make sense. Theres always a need for medical providers and people willing to fill those positions.
Dude was absolutely ruined in this debate. The chairman of a national party organisation got demolished by some bozo comedian doing a TH-cam show in Brooklyn.
Sam is wrong again, if debt can just be written off, its not worth anything. 70%of nothing is 70% of nothing according to him, why would you say it can be written off, then use a graph saying the US owns 70% of something according to him is worthless. What's the point of the graph?
What a putz. As a Canadian, he is so far off the mark hes not even in the same state as the mark. Government as the only player in the game, can force prices down. Doctors aren't poor here...
also, he went from saying "the costs would rise out of control cuz there's no competition" to saying "the costs would be controlled so strictly and the price would drop so low, that people making medicine/providing health services would just quit" lmao
18:43 No, that's a lie. The price of insurance premiums goes down when premiums are being consolidated. When you have many health insurance companies, the premiums aren't being consolidated so the price of premiums and co-pay has to go up in order to have enough money to pay for claims. Claims are the largest expense an insurance company has to pay. The only way to make this work is to make it a monopoly, but the only way to make it not impose a deadweight loss to society is to make it not profit driven, hence it has to be government run because then they aren't providing the service to make money.
I always find it amazing that Libertarians are so fearful of the Government acting in good faith on their behalf yet so willing to put their faith in corporations to act in good faith. It's like they never experienced negative affects of greed thrust upon them.
Nicholas is probably the smartest right-libertarian Sam has ever had call in, and he definitely has the most intellectual integrity. Which is precisely why he lost the debate in such a spectacular fashion. Libertarians 'win' debates by deflecting, speaking in vague platitudes, and trying to provoke an emotional response with puerile ad hominems. When they stick to objective facts and real world examples, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Sam this guy is economically illiterate. He does not understand how our economy actually works. Professor Stephanie Kelton Bernie Sanders chief economic advisor learn mmt please
Damn it just cuts off before it’s over I wanna seee the rest ! I seriously started watching the majority report mainly because of your OUTSTANDING libertarian debates LMAO😂😂 I fuckin want more ! Do more lol
“Help me understand” is honestly the most refreshing thing to hear when speaking with a libertarian. This guy was surprisingly reasonable, guess that’s why he is Chairman.
Good back and forth. Touch of US exceptionalism here though re: the dollar. World reserve currency status isn't a constant. It's a title that gets passed on.
It's why doctors are doctors, teachers are teachers, nurses are nurses, artists are artists, musicians are musicians, and mathematicians are mathematicians, to get RICH!
Sam doing what he does best! As always, excellent work! That being said, while libertarians are reliably wrong and in many cases awful, at least they are willing to have these kinds of debates. I can't imagine a Republican economist (or anyone else who might have even an ounce of power) being willing to sit down for this long and be publicly exposed like this.
I did my clinicals at a VA nursing home. Having worked at several other nursing homes and hospitals since, I can attest to the fact that the VA is significantly better. Better staffed, much better food, nice living conditions, etc. I've worked at corporate nursing homes and they basically get served high school cafeteria food, always short staffed and in the summer they would turn the AC off once office staff went home at 4pm. Mind you these people are either paying thousands a week out of pocket or through insurance. Let capitalism do capitalist things and nursing homes just become a place for people to die.
It’s amazing right wing people who are involved in politics can bring out the cost argument. I too used to assume that private care was more effective but there is so much data to show it’s so costly. Comparing countries shows that the USA spends the most tax payers money whereas fully socialised medicine spends significantly less.
People who poll high for "loving" medicare are those who dont pay for any of it. Those who have to pay for it might have have less enthusiastic poll numbers. Its disingenuous to compare the satisfaction surveys of those who get medicare for free and those who pay for their own insurance like its a level playing field. Totalizing a 20 cents less per dollar for an insurance that is accepted on good faith by hospitals who raise prices on private insurance holders to compensate is not a sustainable strategy. It will collapse almost all hospitals. What would the solution be? More taxes and subsidizing
The way he just casually name drops Vermin Supreme as if he is just another regular libertarian candidate.... amazing
'uhmazin
Daniel Vincent What; you don’t wear a boot on your head?
I'm still hoping Joe Exotic throws his hat in the ring
Wearing a boot on your head does seem like it would increase your capacity to cartwheel... Just Saying.
Fuck yea free ponies for all! :)
I think we can all agree that Destiny got DESTROYED in this debate
LMAO
Watch out you're gonna get an IP Ban from Steven 'I read one "Professional" opinion on economic policy and broadcast it as indisputable fact to my audience' Bonnell...
Love him when it comes to Social Issues... But holy fucking christ, he needs to expand his citation list...
I want 2016 Destiny back....
@@Preacher_. destiny complaining about "researching" TPP for 1 night and then being monologued by michael, who actually knows his shit
Soul Biscuit
I love Michael, but good fucking grief, he was on a Gish Gallop death march!
He spoke almost as much as in the other one.
When a libertarian breaks out the words "lived experience" to argue against medicare you know they don't actually believe what they are saying.
is it code for "shared white xp"?
When a libertarian breaks out the words "lived experience", I start cracking up uncontrollably.
What does that mean? Mythical data that only he is privy to?
As a Libertarian, Sarwak is good at what he does but he's not a great debater. This was never going to end well for him.
Especially after he said you couldn't use polls to gauge health care's success.
With all due respect Sam.
THIS is your bread and butter.
@@beepbopboop7727 I think you mean postmodern NEOmarxist, lol.
I've watched every one of Sam's debates with Libertarians. I've loved them. He's crushed so many. But he was so unbelievably stupid arguing that the U.S. government could simply wipe it's debt. He clearly does not understand the issue at all.
Even though 70% of the debt is owned by Americans and 30% (within the 70, a 40-30 split) is owned by other government entities it simply can not just be wiped off like a simple accounting trick. The entities that own this debt are social security trust fund, retirement fund for federal workers, U.S. military pension funds, state governments for their public workers' retirement and pension funds, Medicare and Medicaid own significant amounts, and the debt owned by the American public is retirement accounts, mutual funds, university endowment funds, union retirement funds, and yes some is just owned by wealthy investors, banks and insurance companies.
This is real debt owned by real people and real agencies who have invested their often hard earned money into what they believed was a safe and reliable medium to keep their money growing a bit faster than inflation rather than devaluing. People depend on the interest from these investments to live off of, or agencies depend on it to make their pension payouts, insurance payouts, etc.
If the U.S. defaults it crushes the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. Sam is an idiot for this one. There is no defaulting possible without a MASSIVE transfer of wealth away from just about every single American who has any sort of saving whatsoever (unless it's just gold or cash under the mattress).
And even suppose the federal government said fuck it. Let's just do it. Fuck everyone. It STILL wouldn't be SUSTAINABLE like Sam said it would because literally no one would ever lend them money again. Then the U.S. government would be forced to spend within their budget and never run a deficit ever again. And while this may sound good to some, it quickly becomes a nightmare when a recession hits, a major ecological disaster happens or a war (I'm antiwar, but maybe one day there will be a defensive war again like WW2) and the U.S. will be fucked and unable to respond quickly or fluidly but have to hold debates in Congress and raise taxes, start collecting money and wait until there is a surplus in the coffers to spend. Either that or maintain a massive emergency account which would require running a budget surplus for several years to save in preparation.
This was not your finest moment Sam. You embarrassed yourself. This isn't just some magical accounting debt that only exists in some ethereal ledger somewhere that the government can just wipe consequence free. Every dollar wiped would have just as big of an impact as a dollar taxed. You might as well be arguing for a one-time 22 trillion dollar tax on the public. The effect is literally equivalent.
Note: I fully support Medicare for all, universal tuition free public college, social security expansion, government guaranteed maternity/paternity leave, government backed childcare, etc. All of these programs are fully achievable through the correct balance of cutting current spending (military, mass incarceration and associated policing/court expenses, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, cutting all corporate subsidies) and raising taxes which will mostly be offset, and in some cases more than completely offset, by the resulting savings in private expenditures. We do not need to create some magical and fictitious accounting trick to save us, like Sam ignorantly tried to do here. These programs are attainable if we just choose to prioritize them.
@@ericbilodeau8526 I agree. We don't need to cheat the system. We have the means to allocate taxes, raise taxes, and negotiate prices to achieve the goals we have, and probably cost effectively.
BeepBop Boop i meant arguing libertarians but this guy was FaIrLy ReAsOnAbLe FoR a LiBeRTarIaN
@@ericbilodeau8526 well said, I also think libertarians and those with your views see eye to eye on a majority of issues taht can be tackled “easily” by dismantling the establishment.
Bring this comedian on again, he was great, stayed in character the whole time.
I know! He didn't even lose it when mentioning Vermin Supreme like a legitimate candidate.
Simon Raworth I love Ron Burgundy.
@@WillBravoNotEvil do you mean Rohm Burgundy?
...is what I would say if the caller was in the democratic party. Look... the joke _would have_ worked, ok? 😏
My dudes I am starting to think maybe they won't let Sam run for president as the Libertarian candidate...
To many libertarians owned segments on his show throughout the years
I'd say one of the most reasonable Libertarians so far. And that says a lot.
He was, indeed. And while joking and being flippant for the first ten minutes, Sam still destroyed his ideas (note: anytime "ideas" is written, Michael's Dave impression needs to be mentioned). When he got more serious towards the end, he slayed him like a dragon. What an absolutely embarrassing party. At least they're less racist than Reich-winged Republicans. To this (idiot) guy's credit, he wasn't a faux Libertarian like Rand/Ron Paul. He condemned the Yemeni slaughter, mass incarceration and deadly white supremacy. However, Sam made him look like an absolute fool that he is.
He was actually funny as well. I’d like him back on.
Yeah, I'd say that guy was pretty cool for being on.
@HKZ P Not true. It wouldn't be a punitive tax, like so many see contemporary taxes. Since most of the money goes to already-rich/well funded programs, and not to programs the working-class desperately need. If a family of four's premiums, deductibles and coinsurances are $50,000 per year, but their taxes only go up by $10,000 per year, they're saving a net of $40,000. Saying taxes will go up without saying it'll net save them money is incredibly misleading. It's not that hard to think about. Why do the largest insurers offer, usually, the best coverage and relatively "affordable" (in the healthcare industry vacuum)? Because they have the largest pool of people. Yet, if an entire country were under one-plan, I hope you realize how much money that'd save. Same with the fact they'd have to negotiate drug prices, etc. Everything Bernie has proposed is moderate-at-worst. This "he's ultra left" is nonsense. What should happen under a Sanders two-term presidency is the following: first four years, take care of all the most pressing issues like curbing climate catastrophe, M4A, universal public college, student debt relief, $15/hour (though it should be at least $20/hour, but I digress), etc., that'd be a great first-term -- assuming they flip the Senate. (Another reason why Sanders NEEDS to be the nominee; he'll help so many down-ticket candidates to make his plans more feasible.) But in the second term, there should be a mass reparations bill. In the trillions of dollars, funded solely by the capitalists that systematically stole from the working class over the last 100+ years. Obviously, black people would get a large chunk, especially if they're direct defendants of slaves. In reality, though, I don't like how Sanders side-steps reparations questions. Yes, they are a bit "gotcha questions," but that's all corporate media. I also understand he understands the country is extraordinarily racist, so it's likely strategic. However, as badly as black folks badly need $1 trillion+ in cash reparations, so does the rest of the working class screwed over by the "owners" of the country. They've stolen untold trillions of dollars from us for far too long. I'm sure a very basic study could come up with a number. The ruling-class, of course, would oppose it, using CNN et al as their conduits. In reality, we have the money to do all this. I really don't think people realize just how much money is in this country -- hell, just the cash in DE would be enough to fund many of these "far left" programs. And, as a strategic measure, it would make reparations a word for whites and blacks (and Asians and Hispanics) instead of a divisive issue for racists. I highly doubt even Sanders would do such a proposal, but it'd be worth it.
To your quantitative easing vs. letting the debt go, Sam is more correct, I'd say. I don't want to write another novella, so I'll just keep it at that. "THE SCARY DEBT" is the most overrated, nonsensical fear-mongering economic tactic the Right uses. All these programs would make the ruling class less powerful, the society more democratic and closer to a legitimate country of solidarity. Although, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates would likely only be able to live off a paltry $50 billion instead of $100-150 billion. We need to "criminalize" capitalism via "fines."
@HKZ P
Where did you get Sam didn't mention QE? Sure, he asked listeners to read about it, but it was mentioned.
I've been waiting for a new edition of "Sam debates a Libertarian." Funny how the libertarians' arguments haven't changed in 10 years.
@@tinamoul
their phone connections...
It's been ten years?!
I've watched every one of Sam's debates with Libertarians. I've loved them. He's crushed so many. But he was so unbelievably stupid arguing that the U.S. government could simply wipe it's debt. He clearly does not understand the issue at all.
Even though 70% of the debt is owned by Americans and 30% (within the 70, a 40-30 split) is owned by other government entities it simply can not just be wiped off like a simple accounting trick. The entities that own this debt are social security trust fund, retirement fund for federal workers, U.S. military pension funds, state governments for their public workers' retirement and pension funds, Medicare and Medicaid own significant amounts, and the debt owned by the American public is retirement accounts, mutual funds, university endowment funds, union retirement funds, and yes some is just owned by wealthy investors, banks and insurance companies.
This is real debt owned by real people and real agencies who have invested their often hard earned money into what they believed was a safe and reliable medium to keep their money growing a bit faster than inflation rather than devaluing. People depend on the interest from these investments to live off of, or agencies depend on it to make their pension payouts, insurance payouts, etc.
If the U.S. defaults it crushes the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. Sam is an idiot for this one. There is no defaulting possible without a MASSIVE transfer of wealth away from just about every single American who has any sort of saving whatsoever (unless it's just gold or cash under the mattress).
And even suppose the federal government said fuck it. Let's just do it. Fuck everyone. It STILL wouldn't be SUSTAINABLE like Sam said it would because literally no one would ever lend them money again. Then the U.S. government would be forced to spend within their budget and never run a deficit ever again. And while this may sound good to some, it quickly becomes a nightmare when a recession hits, a major ecological disaster happens or a war (I'm antiwar, but maybe one day there will be a defensive war again like WW2) and the U.S. will be fucked and unable to respond quickly or fluidly but have to hold debates in Congress and raise taxes, start collecting money and wait until there is a surplus in the coffers to spend. Either that or maintain a massive emergency account which would require running a budget surplus for several years to save in preparation.
This was not your finest moment Sam. You embarrassed yourself. This isn't just some magical accounting debt that only exists in some ethereal ledger somewhere that the government can just wipe consequence free. Every dollar wiped would have just as big of an impact as a dollar taxed. You might as well be arguing for a one-time 22 trillion dollar tax on the public. The effect is literally equivalent.
Note: I fully support Medicare for all, universal tuition free public college, social security expansion, government guaranteed maternity/paternity leave, government backed childcare, etc. All of these programs are fully achievable through the correct balance of cutting current spending (military, mass incarceration and associated policing/court expenses, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, cutting all corporate subsidies) and raising taxes which will mostly be offset, and in some cases more than completely offset, by the resulting savings in private expenditures. We do not need to create some magical and fictitious accounting trick to save us, like Sam ignorantly tried to do here. These programs are attainable if we just choose to prioritize them.
@@ericbilodeau8526 Nope. Read Modern Monetary Theory. The point is we don't have to default.
@J P Modern Libertarian principals are not immutable laws. Even communist and socialist thought has evolved...I guess Libertarianism is like Star Wars fandom. A lot of us go through that phase, but most age out when better options are presented. I know I've moved on from the idea of fantasy westerns... and Star Wars.
@J P Define your terms. Both"human nature" and "natural law" have changed meaning over millennia as we have gained more knowledge and insight. They could mean literally anything, and so they are meaningless. And to think that there is nothing new under the sun suggests there is no relationship between a person and their external environment. There has been a doubling of population growth and life spans in the past 60 years, along with the ability for cross-cultural communication, while at the same time exploiting the resources of the earth in ways it cannot recover naturally. Both in an individual level and a social one, we are living contradictions, even when it comes to our own self interests... What is a specific principal that you believe Libertarians have right? Or better yet, what is one that Sam has not successfully argued against?
Damn Sam is killing this dude , it was all joking around , then Sam went for the kill
Sam landed too many hits to count. Its like this guy doesn't know anything about how the world functions.
Sam does not even know how statebonds work, and that he advocate make them junkbonds with stupid policies. Then the endresult is nobody buys the bonds, and all services stops, and you have government shutdown. Talk about screwing yourselves.
@@dnciskkk9037 they were talking about US treasuries.
@@henrygustav7948 The US treasury issues the bonds, it does not hold them. You got it backwards. And Sam apparently got it backwards. You must be conflating it with social security, pension funds, etc, or with the federal reserves. The federal reserves hold bonds worth 6 trillion. You leftists conflate terms, and do not understand anything. And defaulting on loans have an effect no matter what, bankrupting the federal reserve has a cost.
@@dnciskkk9037 you guys love to make it about left or right. US Federal govt is monetarily sovereign and can not go bankrupt. Bonds and Federal taxation don't fund Fed govt expenditures and its impossible to default, why? Because the US Fed govt issues the currency. Constitution article 1 section 8.
RUN, SAM, RUUUNNNNN!!! Please god, allow this to happen!
I would religiously watch the libertarian debates if that were to happen...
Somebody send this to Shapiro’s wife so she can stop losing sleep thinking she’s going to not get paid and lose her job
Booty Eater LOL
According to Shapiro , Doctors in a single payer system are FORCED to provide care and are not better than slaves.
@HKZ P Yup, apparently, according to lil' Ben
Wait... holy shit is Ben’s wife a doctor?! Has he talked about it before?
Poor thing is afraid she's going to lose her job _and_ has never been satisfied by her husband, according to her husband. Poor gal.
Edit: Booty Eater, maybe you can help her out.
Libertarian: "I thought China owned most of our debt."
Sam: *pulls up graph graph* "No, the only own 10%."
Libertarian: " Oh..."
but we had to get the money from somewhere………………………………………………………………………………..we didn't just print it like Sam seems to think
And this guy is the libertarian head!
Sam would show you what graph if you made a big enough deal about it, he’s genuine you know, like most of us on this side are
Most of the foreign debt. Just like progressives cant figure out that insurance doesnt save or kill people. And satisfaction surveys are not health outcomes. And military spending is the largest part of ONLY discretionary spending.
I didn't see that part. Where is the graph at that shows China owns 10%?
Libitarian guy: now come on sam we should look at cost not polls
Sam: well due to economies of scale it is bascially impossible to cost more
Libitarian guy: come on Sam there cost but we need to talk about the polls
🤦♂️
Y'know I respect this guy a lot more than your typical republican, but they're still not being logically consistent. The correct answer to the medicare for all issue is "that's government and I don't like it so I'm against it". That's it. Forget every point he tried to bring up and was wrong about, just stick to what you actually believe in and be consistent.
Agreed. This is the core of their belief system, anything else is just post-facto dressing to make that core look better.
They don't even need to say that. They can just say that people should have the freedom to choose what they spend their own money on, if they want to die from lack of healthcare that's their personal right. "I don't like government so don't like Medicare for all" is phrasing it as a leftist.
Former free market libertarian here, when it came to universal healthcare or other issues where libertarian “logic” was so obviously wrong, I remember engaging in tons and tons of motivated reasoning just to be able to continue holding my position that the free market works for healthcare, because with libertarians, if the free market fails at anything that means it fails at everything and the whole “philosophy” falls apart
You really have to do mental gymnastics and redefine others to be able to defend you positions, very sad. Libertarians are very worried about financial collapse. Fiscal responsibility is at the core of everything. Adding 3 trillion to a budget of 3,5 trillion, is just plain insanity, and irresponsible childs play.
Why would you respect this guy? Libertarianism in the U.S. is just a distraction created by a couple of billionaires who know it's not serious but through it, they try to get support for deregulatory practices of the republican party because a libertarian reality is just not an actual reality and these guys all know it; so the reason this guy holds this position for a joke party is the money he gets to play the role. So he is absolutely ingenuine.
Sam destroyed this guy. Nice guy tho, probably the person you want to represent the party apparatus. Libertarians did a good job pickin him
@HKZ P debt stuff he's totally right. check out MMT
@HKZ P What you're failing to consider is that argentine peso doesn't resemble the usd in any way, nor does the history of the argentine economy have any relationship
The fact that the whole libertarian economic argument could be destroyed by asking how they would build the streets makes it very sad. (They always respond with a collective where each one of them pays a little amount of money [basically taxes])
Libertarian economy works by being very simple, like pre tool making simple.
And then with same mouth saying taxation equals theft
How about no streets and we just drive around in ATVs?
Flintstones car.
I thought the libertarian response to the streets argument was "ah yes, the old 'who will build the streets argument!'," followed by changing the subject.
Awww, Libertarians are so adorable. They have such a naïve, innocent view on the world.
Sam sounded like he was explaining things to a 10 year old. I honestly felt kind of bad for the guy.
My big issue with Libertarians is that they have this apple-pie attitude that all you need to do in life is work hard and nothing else matters. Yes, yes, working hard is important and no one is saying you shouldn't. But mature people are beyond that point. We are smart enough to realize that not everyone will have equal access to the same opportunities. Or, at least, the opportunities are harder to come by. So, some people have to work even harder "disabled, poor, non-white people:. Of course you should work hard and do the best you can to make a better life for yourself. Back in the day, that would fall under a "duuuuh" statement. But it doesn't change the fact that some groups have better advantages and we should try and work to fix that. @@xbsdbsdbx
My lecturer in university once said 'Libertarians are a lot like cats, they think they're independent but they don't realise you're actually taking care of them the whole time'
Just the opposite. We are realistic about the abuse of government power. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." --Lord Byron Acton
@@Ru95M "my lecturer in university" LOL!
I was looking forward to voting for Sam Seder to be the libertarian nominee but I’m starting to think he might not really be a libertarian....
Libertarians: Alright I spent 10 years prepping for this debate, I'm ready!
Sam: How you gonna pay for roads?
Libertarians: FUCK
What are roads?
@@roarblast7332 socialism
If I don't drive on it, it don't need to be there
What sam did to this man shouldn't be legal 🤣
I feel you... but it should though..
Nuking people like this is indeed borderline criminal
Why do you hate _FREEDOM,_ @GORA HINDU!?
when sam starts a point with "well them Im' sure you also know and are aware of ...." you know the guy is going to get butchered
I've watched every one of Sam's debates with Libertarians. I've loved them. He's crushed so many. But he was so unbelievably stupid arguing that the U.S. government could simply wipe it's debt. He clearly does not understand the issue at all.
Even though 70% of the debt is owned by Americans and 30% (within the 70, a 40-30 split) is owned by other government entities it simply can not just be wiped off like a simple accounting trick. The entities that own this debt are social security trust fund, retirement fund for federal workers, U.S. military pension funds, state governments for their public workers' retirement and pension funds, Medicare and Medicaid own significant amounts, and the debt owned by the American public is retirement accounts, mutual funds, university endowment funds, union retirement funds, and yes some is just owned by wealthy investors, banks and insurance companies.
This is real debt owned by real people and real agencies who have invested their often hard earned money into what they believed was a safe and reliable medium to keep their money growing a bit faster than inflation rather than devaluing. People depend on the interest from these investments to live off of, or agencies depend on it to make their pension payouts, insurance payouts, etc.
If the U.S. defaults it crushes the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. Sam is an idiot for this one. There is no defaulting possible without a MASSIVE transfer of wealth away from just about every single American who has any sort of saving whatsoever (unless it's just gold or cash under the mattress).
And even suppose the federal government said fuck it. Let's just do it. Fuck everyone. It STILL wouldn't be SUSTAINABLE like Sam said it would because literally no one would ever lend them money again. Then the U.S. government would be forced to spend within their budget and never run a deficit ever again. And while this may sound good to some, it quickly becomes a nightmare when a recession hits, a major ecological disaster happens or a war (I'm antiwar, but maybe one day there will be a defensive war again like WW2) and the U.S. will be fucked and unable to respond quickly or fluidly but have to hold debates in Congress and raise taxes, start collecting money and wait until there is a surplus in the coffers to spend. Either that or maintain a massive emergency account which would require running a budget surplus for several years to save in preparation.
This was not your finest moment Sam. You embarrassed yourself. This isn't just some magical accounting debt that only exists in some ethereal ledger somewhere that the government can just wipe consequence free. Every dollar wiped would have just as big of an impact as a dollar taxed. You might as well be arguing for a one-time 22 trillion dollar tax on the public. The effect is literally equivalent.
Note: I fully support Medicare for all, universal tuition free public college, social security expansion, government guaranteed maternity/paternity leave, government backed childcare, etc. All of these programs are fully achievable through the correct balance of cutting current spending (military, mass incarceration and associated policing/court expenses, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, cutting all corporate subsidies) and raising taxes which will mostly be offset, and in some cases more than completely offset, by the resulting savings in private expenditures. We do not need to create some magical and fictitious accounting trick to save us, like Sam ignorantly tried to do here. These programs are attainable if we just choose to prioritize them.
This made me wonder-How devastating would a Sam vs. Rubin debate actually be?😂
It would be a non-debate.
Exactly why he doesnt entertain lefties
@@ScribeLur ,
He does a poor job of entertaining leftists... he requires people to go over his statements to make sense out of them.
Poor Rubin.. cursed to be a terrible comedian. :(
I would prefer a Sam vs Crowder debate
Eduardo Flores Do you happen to know of a program similar to this one or the Jimmy Dore show in Spanish?
Stop, stop
He’s already dead 😭😭😭
Omg... 😂
WITH GOD AS MY WITNESS, THAT MAN HAS BEEN BROKEN IN HALF
Working Title:
'Sam Swats A Fly Off Of His Shoe'
Not enough appreciation in the world for this comment.
Libertarian house fly with a human head
This is amazing. I've never seen someone so logically debunk other persons talking points through factual evidence. Sam really understands monetary policy in a much deeper way than I've heard before. Incredible job.
Sam knows a bit of mmt definitely.
Sam's a very informed person
Sam has been in this game for a long time, long before the quality of political debate took a sharp nosedive and never recovered. It's also why his comedy is so effective.
He showed a complete misunderstanding of economics... He's got people like you eating out of his hands, though.
@@georgiajeep7 Sawrwak did, yes.
Wow Sarwark walked right into that "VA" line of argument like a buzzsaw. He doesn't know anything about the VA at all.
This guy should give a master class on moving the goalpost
Libertarians... the comedic gift that keeps on giving 🤣
is it really comedy tho when they're still doing the same grift 20 years later ??
Their economic ideas are based off magic & completely ignoring reality
@@Michael_Paul585 what's his name??
@@snesntmlnial9790 yeah i just never found seinfeld funny at all, he always came off really hacky and the other chucklefuks like kramer just annoyed me. i'll re-watch some bill hicks or martin lawrence though, and I like a lot of the other big names.
@thesparitan What if - by virtue of libertarian ideas and pure, good ol' fashioned elbow grease - a libertarian becomes so wealthy as to become part of the aristocracy? I think I got him!
I live in the UK and the NHS was doing great until the 1990s. It’s been a slippery slope of stealth privatization, and, especially since Conservative party austerity in 2010, spending cuts.
Yes, Richard Wolff talked about this on TMBS (You should check it out!). The purpose is to cut popular programs in order to make them seem nonfunctioning at their core in order to cut and gut even more.
I don't even know why I'm telling you this lol. I'm preaching to the choir 😭
@@IanBlunden Except funding for the NHS went up every single year during the "austerity" years. So no, there weren't any cuts.
@@niceday21 most contracts are given to private companies. STFU! Tories are shit.
Aren't most libertarians just closeted conservatives?
Only when it's convenient
Yeah but Libertarians and Progressives some /many agreeable points on foreign policy.
Yes
@@poorboy2772 and drug policy
I made this comment before watching the video to the point Sam said it himself
I appreciate the libertarian being very willing to debate
Sam gives poll numbers.
"Those are polls. I'm not gonna use those."
Sam gives costs.
"But that doesn't match the polls."
Libertarian doofus: “Use this metric.”
Sam: “Excellent. By that metric my ideas stack up extraordinarily well!”
Doofus: “No use this other metric!”
Sam: “My ideas hold up under that as well!”
Doofus: “Nevermind, go back to the other one!”
This whole conversation in a nutshell.
7:55
Libertarians: "The individual always know what's the best policy for themselves."
Sam: "individual polling shows that people love socialized medicine."
Libertarian: "Huh, actually, policy wonks know what's best, individuals don't have the full picture."
Your first statement is wrong.
Amazing how these guys worry about a monopoly when it comes to single payer but welcome monopolies like google and facebook.
Libertarians usually don’t, mainly because of the suspicion that google is being artificially propped up through artificial regulations and restrictions on market trade, reducing competition and barrier to entry into the market. Libertarians will defend monopolies if they naturally form because the monopoly was formed due to consumer choices and because competition can always spring up to provide a better good or service.
@@kingtoon22 That is an interesting point if valid.
@J P google is a democracy? Cool when do I get to vote on Google's corporate policies, leadership, which projects Google will fund and how Google's finances are distributed?
@J P lol plenty of places around the world have markets that doesn't make them democracies
@J P saying a "free market" is democratic doesn't make it so. If workers don't democratically make decisions in their workplace, really its just a a series of oligarchies and autocracies that people can choose from.
while this one is not as flashy as the drunks or jet pack proponents it's always satisfying to watch Seder take on libertarians
Watched this glorious thing live but it was like 80 minutes long where's the whole thing?
Gonna remeainhere for updates.
Yeah I was asking that, hopefully they'll put out a part 2.
Nathan Kelm yeah WTF I need more lol
Was it live today?
when was it live?
At least he said “racist war on drugs.”
He knew libertarians were such SJWs! Surprised to hear that after a heap of them think child labour laws are wrong haha
We have had national debt since the revolutionary war it’s never has been an issue
Jessica Hildebrand Well you can thank the complete economic reforms under Alexander Hamilton’s tenure as Treasury Secretary for that!
Borrowing 400 billions to pay interest on your existing debt, is kind of an issue. If the debt remain the same over 10 years, that is 4 trillion wasted. And if you add 30 trillion to the debt over 10 years, it will be a trillion dollars a year in interest with current interestrates, but they will not stay the same. If you double your debt and it becomes to big percentage of GDP, then interestrates will skyrocket. and you are talking new debt with double or triple interest rates. Running new creditcards to pay down old creditcard debt has never worked.
@@dnciskkk9037 Who receives the interest payments? The interest payments are an income flow to the nongovernment sector, just as social security checks are an income flow to the nongovernment sector; these payments increase the wealth of the nongovernment sector. Some of the bonds are held by foreigners, but how did the foreigners get the dollars to purchase the bonds? They traded their goods for them - fair and square. Now we have the goods and they have the bonds (which are the saving account version of dollars). That is how trade works. The government is not a household!
@@robertjenkins6132 You clearly do not understand it, and desperately try to argue for irresponsible freebies, disregarding every fact,. Issued bonds yield interest that must be paid with US dollars, and it must be printed or produced by selling more bonds. , AKA passing the bill off to your kids. Don't pretend like you know how much is held by federal agancies and others, and it is irrelevant, it must be paid. You try to pivot of the issue. And don't bring trading goods into this. Must I explain the basics to you, countries have companies, that export and import, countries need tradesurplus to run green numbers, or high taxes, or must sell their own bonds to fund the red numbers, just like USA. Countries that have surplus do not want pressure in their economy, and buy statebonds from other nations to balance the budget. Countries are very much like investmentbanks in that regard. You issue bonds with a lower interest rate to buy bonds with a higher yield, that is free money. My country did that with USA and Greece in both their biggest crises and made out like bandits. Greek bonds was dumped at 40 cents on the dollar, and our pensionfund took a gamble, knowing EU would bail them out.
You have to understand the difference between companies and country, you cannot argue that USA sells bonds and germany pay with BMWs and apfelstrudel.
Google gold vs dollar value. This is why when dems say we are wage slaves they aren't 100% wrong.
Stop it Sam, you're gonna make him quit the party!
the entire premise of this debate being that Sam wants to run as a libertarian candidate is woke
I’m 10 minutes in and Sam is just mopping the floor with this fella
Monity ... Yeah, too bad Sam doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Magnus Dayne Magnus Dayne
One can't lose against a libertarian in a debate.
At least they've finally fixed the phone lines to libertarian homes.
You’ve convinced me Sam. New subscriber and supporter of single payer healthcare
Nicholas Sarwark is fired.
Man I miss these
That was embarrassing, I'm on Sam Sedar's side here but 10 minutes into this I was starting to root for Nicholas to do better just because I felt so bad for him. So one sided
Lmao. A total squash match.
I freaking love Sam Seder. He's just so casual about "destroying" people.
How can you be so underprepared for such simple questions
Because libertarians take Econ 101 (nothing later) and no history or government classes in college.
Some of these were tough
It makes me happy he’s the chair leader. If this is the brightest person in the party, we have little to fear.
What was he unprepared on? Sam had not prepared, his staff had printed out some talking points from imbecils, and was wrong on everything. What a simpleton, when will he grow a brain, and when will he bother preparing for his show. He does not seem to put in any effort and is just slacking.
Wayne Paul he seemed to have more awareness of the tougher questions is my point. But the efficiency and cost savings of single payer is pretty common knowledge.
Does he know Vermin Supreme personally?
*Libertarianism*
The politics of angry teenage boys whose mothers won't leave them alone, don't want any responsibility and thinks giving a damn about people isn't cool.
Satyasya Satyasya Love that definition!
@@oldishandwoke-ish1181 thanks ^^
Because printing your way out of debt says i care about others right?
@@ryry7886 No, because paying into a communal pot is the only realistic way for most people to afford decent infrastructure, health care, education and retirement plans. Being a tight wad doesn't say much about caring for others, either.
I missed the part where libertarians wanted to send the police door to door to collect ar15s using ar15s.
Fuck, I never realized just how much of a badass Sam Seder was until now
At first I didn't understand the fear a lot of people have about debating Sam, now It's abundantly clear to me.
Hell yeah, Sam debates libertarians for fun - Steven Crowder's Dad knows that his son doesn't have a chance.
@@redlightmax Sam often puts people in these positions to acknowledge an irrefutable truth about the society we live in and they get this ego about it because its in that moment they know he's about to dismantle the entire argument.
If libertarians were just honest and to the point about how little they give a fuck about other people, it would actually help their argument a bit. They try to paint it like they want what's best for everyone and that's simply not what their ideology suggests.
This debate gave me flashbacks of ap micro/macro
A Single Payer Public Option is 100% Libertarian...A full mandatory Single Payer System is not.
I'm not quite sure how the VA is performing in other, more conservative regions of the country, although we' ve all heard the accounts of long waiting lists for recent-era vets and about the condition of some VA facilities, but I've been getting VA healthcare in CA since 1974 and have always had a superb, truly caring experience.
“Do you think the government is doing a good job with your money?”
“Yes”
I died hahahaha
Loved watching this debate live! Can we get the full debate upload please?
At least upload the rest in parts and add links.
Sam needs to say "Single payer national health insurance", because that's specific to Medicare for All. When he says "single payer", he's being unclear, because that applies to both the NHS and Medicare for All.
The NHS is Single Payer National Health System..
Why not upload the whole thing?
The problem with libertarianism is that it wrongly starts from a faulty philosophical framework first and then tries to make policy decisions from there, meanwhile, not realizing that their philosophy is based on a completely fallacious premise to begin with which is why it always leads to horribly thought out policy proposals. Nevermind the fact that history and real world outcomes prove otherwise and should be looked at and understood first, but is completely ignored instead. How they do not see this flaw is beyond me.
This debate reminded me too much of my last relationship.
Wait you were in an abusive relationship?
@@beepbopboop7727 Maybe he wasted their time
OK, I normally support Sam, but no, the US cannot simply default with no consequences. There would be HUGE consequences. The US dollar would drop to near-worthlessness and it would start a worldwide economic catastrophe.
What you should have told this idiot is that single-payer healthcare produces better results for LESS money.
And hence the world will never allow this to happen. The US is too big to fail
I feel like Sam is underestimating the outcome of "writing off" the portions of our debt owed directly to us.
I am convinced that Sam Seeder should run for public office.
I vote for “Vermin Supreme,” Based solely upon name!
Check out his look as well, classic
Steve Savage thank you. I got a kick out of that.
I do it because I believe every American deserves a free pony
@@goodbeans same
I thought Vermin Supreme was Melania's nickname for Trump.
2019: We can print money because we are the USA
2021: 50% inflation in food.
This man spoke like some kid on a high school debate team. For him the answer to being wrong is to be flippant.
Libertarians are perpetually high school debate team kids.
A basic fact that all libertarians need to ignore if their going to make their preffered argument is that "single payer cost LESS than our private systems in every major country in the world."
Sam destroys factually incorrect arguments while exposing ignorance with fervor! Awesome!
Loool they have no argument against mmt cause it's just a technical description of how dollars work
Is it? That's why we had the European sovereign debt crisis? Because mmt worked in that instance? 😂🤣🤣🤣
@@fgsaramago EU members are not sovereign issuers of anything
@@PK-on9vj they were until 2002. In fact the main reason for creating the Euro was to stop the mmt like policies that countries chronically applied with devastating medium and long term consequences
I guess Nicholas didn't know Sam was the Libertarian Destroyer 🤷🏻♂️
David Owens all I saw was someone who was prepared/good at debating vs someone who was not prepared good at debating. If he destroys someone like Gary Johnson I would be more impressed.
With the Medicaid expansion, something like 1.2 million more jobs were created. And almost every single doctor accepts Medicaid. So the theory of job loss and doctors quitting just doesnt even make sense. Theres always a need for medical providers and people willing to fill those positions.
We need the FULL debate!!!
Dude was absolutely ruined in this debate. The chairman of a national party organisation got demolished by some bozo comedian doing a TH-cam show in Brooklyn.
This isn’t Evan a debate it’s just :
Nick: Pointless question
Sam: debilitating answer
Nick: Ok
Repeat
Sam is wrong again, if debt can just be written off, its not worth anything. 70%of nothing is 70% of nothing according to him, why would you say it can be written off, then use a graph saying the US owns 70% of something according to him is worthless. What's the point of the graph?
What a putz. As a Canadian, he is so far off the mark hes not even in the same state as the mark. Government as the only player in the game, can force prices down. Doctors aren't poor here...
also, he went from saying "the costs would rise out of control cuz there's no competition" to saying "the costs would be controlled so strictly and the price would drop so low, that people making medicine/providing health services would just quit" lmao
18:43 No, that's a lie. The price of insurance premiums goes down when premiums are being consolidated. When you have many health insurance companies, the premiums aren't being consolidated so the price of premiums and co-pay has to go up in order to have enough money to pay for claims. Claims are the largest expense an insurance company has to pay. The only way to make this work is to make it a monopoly, but the only way to make it not impose a deadweight loss to society is to make it not profit driven, hence it has to be government run because then they aren't providing the service to make money.
Is Nicholas a progressive now? Ha Ha, "Yeah, let's shift."
I always find it amazing that Libertarians are so fearful of the Government acting in good faith on their behalf yet so willing to put their faith in corporations to act in good faith. It's like they never experienced negative affects of greed thrust upon them.
So when we'll be able to donate to Sam Seder's campaign for Libertarian Party's nomination for President of USA?
Imagine having a three way debate between Trump, Bernie & Seder
I'm not even A era an and I would donate to that!😂
Nicholas is probably the smartest right-libertarian Sam has ever had call in, and he definitely has the most intellectual integrity. Which is precisely why he lost the debate in such a spectacular fashion. Libertarians 'win' debates by deflecting, speaking in vague platitudes, and trying to provoke an emotional response with puerile ad hominems. When they stick to objective facts and real world examples, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Sam this guy is economically illiterate. He does not understand how our economy actually works. Professor Stephanie Kelton Bernie Sanders chief economic advisor learn mmt please
Wrong. Go learn more.... please.
James H Gunby okay tell me where I'm wrong smart guy
Damn it just cuts off before it’s over I wanna seee the rest ! I seriously started watching the majority report mainly because of your OUTSTANDING libertarian debates LMAO😂😂 I fuckin want more !
Do more lol
damn, sam is pretty erudite when he wants to be
Lol Sam keeps Dunking on libertarians, and I believed this was from 2016. However this guy at least didn't meltdown on air or went in to jetpaks.
"Relative to what... Verizon?" LMAO!
My Dad was a Korean War vet. Got prostate cancer. The VA covered his entire treatment.
The government could tax US oligarchs to pay for stuff instead of issuing debt to foreign governments
Just like FDR and Eisenhower did
“Help me understand” is honestly the most refreshing thing to hear when speaking with a libertarian. This guy was surprisingly reasonable, guess that’s why he is Chairman.
Good back and forth. Touch of US exceptionalism here though re: the dollar. World reserve currency status isn't a constant. It's a title that gets passed on.
It's why doctors are doctors, teachers are teachers, nurses are nurses, artists are artists, musicians are musicians, and mathematicians are mathematicians, to get RICH!
Sam doing what he does best! As always, excellent work!
That being said, while libertarians are reliably wrong and in many cases awful, at least they are willing to have these kinds of debates. I can't imagine a Republican economist (or anyone else who might have even an ounce of power) being willing to sit down for this long and be publicly exposed like this.
I did my clinicals at a VA nursing home. Having worked at several other nursing homes and hospitals since, I can attest to the fact that the VA is significantly better. Better staffed, much better food, nice living conditions, etc. I've worked at corporate nursing homes and they basically get served high school cafeteria food, always short staffed and in the summer they would turn the AC off once office staff went home at 4pm. Mind you these people are either paying thousands a week out of pocket or through insurance. Let capitalism do capitalist things and nursing homes just become a place for people to die.
we printed money to go to war and bail out bankers, but he draws the line at medicare for all🤔🤨🤬
Once it actually helps the American citizens it's too far man, too far
It’s amazing right wing people who are involved in politics can bring out the cost argument. I too used to assume that private care was more effective but there is so much data to show it’s so costly. Comparing countries shows that the USA spends the most tax payers money whereas fully socialised medicine spends significantly less.
Sam's eyebrows remind me of Tower Bridge when it opens to let the boats through / \
The Libertarian chats are the best 😄
When he does those eyebrows you know he's about to get sassy.
People who poll high for "loving" medicare are those who dont pay for any of it. Those who have to pay for it might have have less enthusiastic poll numbers. Its disingenuous to compare the satisfaction surveys of those who get medicare for free and those who pay for their own insurance like its a level playing field.
Totalizing a 20 cents less per dollar for an insurance that is accepted on good faith by hospitals who raise prices on private insurance holders to compensate is not a sustainable strategy. It will collapse almost all hospitals. What would the solution be? More taxes and subsidizing
11:55 howd he get up from this?
Argentina and Venezuela do not have a sovereign currency currency they are tied to the US dollar.