Ben Shapiro vs Cenk Uyger

[TakeYouToTasker]

Worthwhile watch/listen.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rnJzYHRp2w

[LeviF]

I'm not sure what Uyger was thinking when he decided to debate Shapiro.

[Azalin]

That was good - thanks for posting that link. You couldn't pay me to debate Shapiro, but then again he pretty much speaks my language anyway.

[B-Man]

Good Post..........thanks

[Dr.Sack]

I was disappointed that Shapiro used the same tired cliches that I heard on O'Reilly's show 20 years ago. Cenk leveled so many facts on Shapiro that went without a response.

 

One fact that went without a retort was how the Governor of Kansas plan to drop taxes failed to spur the economic growth, to the point they needed to admit the plan failed and raise the taxes to avoid a debt default. Just when you thought you'd hear the tired conservative debate cliche "Venezuela or Zimbabwe" to the pitfalls of infinite money printing it was Cenk who battered Shapiro with that same accusation by saying it is Trump who doesn't believe in balancing the budget. Cenk then proceeded to lay out his case based on the facts that you can't cut taxes to the level Trump has been proposing and increase spending by $54 billion alone on the bloated defense budget, while just limiting the pace in growth of government spending.

 

Another big victory for Cenk was the acknowledgement of demographics, that the U.S. is simply changing demographically, something that Shapiro failed to mention once, or how the right plans to win over voters that are breaking 4 to 1 for other parties over the Republican Party. Cenk rightly pointed out that coalitions must be built around policies which bring demographic groups together not divide them. And as Cenk pointed out, every year 1 million new citizens immigrate and become legal residents.

[/dev/null]

I was disappointed that Shapiro used the same tired cliches that I heard on O'Reilly's show 20 years ago. Cenk leveled so many facts on Shapiro that went without a response.

 

One fact that went without a retort was how the Governor of Kansas plan to drop taxes failed to spur the economic growth, to the point they needed to admit the plan failed and raise the taxes to avoid a debt default. Just when you thought you'd hear the tired conservative debate cliche "Venezuela or Zimbabwe" to the pitfalls of infinite money printing it was Cenk who battered Shapiro with that same accusation by saying it is Trump who doesn't believe in balancing the budget. Cenk then proceeded to lay out his case based on the facts that you can't cut taxes to the level Trump has been proposing and increase spending by $54 billion alone on the bloated defense budget, while just limiting the pace in growth of government spending.

 

Another big victory for Cenk was the acknowledgement of demographics, that the U.S. is simply changing demographically, something that Shapiro failed to mention once, or how the right plans to win over voters that are breaking 4 to 1 for other parties over the Republican Party. Cenk rightly pointed out that coalitions must be built around policies which bring demographic groups together not divide them. And as Cenk pointed out, every year 1 million new citizens immigrate and become legal residents.

 

Either people are tuned to what they want to hear or you're smoking some potent schitt.

Edited August 1, 2017 by /dev/null

[GG]

If your definition of facts includes feelings and emotions, then yes Cenk obliterated Shapiro.

[Magox]

I was disappointed that Shapiro used the same tired cliches that I heard on O'Reilly's show 20 years ago. Cenk leveled so many facts on Shapiro that went without a response.

 

One fact that went without a retort was how the Governor of Kansas plan to drop taxes failed to spur the economic growth, to the point they needed to admit the plan failed and raise the taxes to avoid a debt default. Just when you thought you'd hear the tired conservative debate cliche "Venezuela or Zimbabwe" to the pitfalls of infinite money printing it was Cenk who battered Shapiro with that same accusation by saying it is Trump who doesn't believe in balancing the budget. Cenk then proceeded to lay out his case based on the facts that you can't cut taxes to the level Trump has been proposing and increase spending by $54 billion alone on the bloated defense budget, while just limiting the pace in growth of government spending.

 

Another big victory for Cenk was the acknowledgement of demographics, that the U.S. is simply changing demographically, something that Shapiro failed to mention once, or how the right plans to win over voters that are breaking 4 to 1 for other parties over the Republican Party. Cenk rightly pointed out that coalitions must be built around policies which bring demographic groups together not divide them. And as Cenk pointed out, every year 1 million new citizens immigrate and become legal residents.

 

 

 

Hopefully I can get some free time and give it a listen.

 

However there is something to be said in regards to this Kansas debate. I'm not aware of the full facts other than it did appear that the tax rates were too low. I'm a big believer in the concept of the Laffer Curve, it is so simple and almost to the point to where you could actually accept it as nearly economic gospel.

 

If you tax too high, economic output and tax revenues go down, if you tax too low, tax revenues go down. In other words there is a sweet spot.

 

The only thing that is uncertain is the shape of the curve. And there is no fixed and settled magic number, there are tons of variables that need to be considered, such as level of spending, economic output etc etc. It's clear to me that in this instance Brownback was a bit too ambitious with his tax cuts relative to his state's spending.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Magox

[TakeYouToTasker]

When asked which specific loop holes to close, Cenk listed "Irish sandwich" and "the double Dutch", neither of which are accurate terms. Cenk couldn't properly speak to something he states he opposes. He also didn't comment on how US tax law should impact multinational corporations whose earnings aren't impacted by US tax law. He didn't speak to the fact that our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the industrialized world, nor did he explain how or why the United States is entitled to money owned by corporations which has never entered the US economy.

 

This was a consistent theme throughout.

[Nanker]

We'll, if the US is obligated to allow all citizens of the world free entry into the country and citizenship in same, then it's perfectly logical that its government is entitled to as much money from all companies throughout the entire world that they can wrest from them. [/leftist dogmatic prattle]

[bdutton]

Cenk had a few good points but only a few and Ben ripped him apart on most. Cenk insulting the crowd calling them 'Uneducated' was such a winning strategy. What a douche.

[Azalin]

When asked which specific loop holes to close, Cenk listed "Irish sandwich" and "the double Dutch", neither of which are accurate terms. Cenk couldn't properly speak to something he states he opposes. He also didn't comment on how US tax law should impact multinational corporations whose earnings aren't impacted by US tax law. He didn't speak to the fact that our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the industrialized world, nor did he explain how or why the United States is entitled to money owned by corporations which has never entered the US economy.

 

This was a consistent theme throughout.

 

The takeaway for me was that Uyger resorted to dogma much more frequently than did Shapiro.

 

Cenk had a few good points but only a few and Ben ripped him apart on most. Cenk insulting the crowd calling them 'Uneducated' was such a winning strategy. What a douche.

 

Yeah, insulting your audience and resorting to "google it" a couple of times isn't generally conducive to winning hearts and minds.

[GoBills808]

 

 

 

Hopefully I can get some free time and give it a listen.

 

However there is something to be said in regards to this Kansas debate. I'm not aware of the full facts other than it did appear that the tax rates were too low. I'm a big believer in the concept of the Laffer Curve, it is so simple and almost to the point to where you could actually accept it as nearly economic gospel.

 

If you tax too high, economic output and tax revenues go down, if you tax too low, tax revenues go down. In other words there is a sweet spot.

 

The only thing that is uncertain is the shape of the curve. And there is no fixed and settled magic number, there are tons of variables that need to be considered, such as level of spending, economic output etc etc. It's clear to me that in this instance Brownback was a bit too ambitious with his tax cuts relative to his state's spending.

Been reading Jordan Ellenberg?