In an unexpected turn of events, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro joined Scott Jennings on CNN, where they engaged in a spirited debate with Abby Phillip's predominantly left-leaning panel, including the ever-vocal Ana Kasparian.
The hour-long discourse served as a revealing insight into the Democratic Party's mindset, with Shapiro frequently confronted with impassioned tirades and baseless claims, both of which are emblematic of left-wing ideology.
During the discussion, Kasparian challenged the notion that Social Security was a significant contributor to the nation's debt, arguing instead that military spending, particularly on wars in the Middle East, was the primary culprit. According to RedState, the exchange went as follows:
Kasparian stated, "By the way, I just totally reject what you just said about how we're going bankrupt due to Social Security. Really, you don't think, like, the trillions of dollars we've spent on wars in the Middle East has something to do with that?"
To which Shapiro retorted, "That's even not remotely a percentage of..." Kasparian interjected, "No, no, no, our national debt shot up significantly after 9/11, after we started invading countries in the Middle East."
"Now, we're at 30, we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on Israel, on Ukraine. Honestly, these foreign conflicts have a lot more to do with our national debt as opposed to us paying into Social Security."
Jennings then asked Kasparian, "You think Israel is a bigger portion of our budget than Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?" Kasparian responded, "I think we spend way too much money for military aid for foreign countries."
Jennings pressed on, "I'm just asking you as a mathematical matter, do you think Israel is more than social security?" Kasparian retorted, "Do you think that Social Security is an issue compared to how much money we just shell out for conflicts abroad?" To which Jennings replied, "As a matter of math, yes."
Kasparian's rejection of the argument that Social Security is a significant contributor to the national debt is indicative of her ideological stance. However, her personal beliefs do not alter the statistical facts.
Regardless of her views on the wars in question, the spending on these conflicts has been overshadowed by the ongoing expenditures of domestic entitlements. Shapiro pointed out that the national debt began to skyrocket after 2008. While spending in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to this, they were not the primary drivers.
The debate also touched on the issue of Social Security and its role in the nation's financial health. Phillip, who was moderating the discussion, seemed to misunderstand how Social Security operates.
She argued that Social Security is people's money, to which Shapiro responded, "I promise you, the amount that people are taking out is not the amount that is going in, which is why we are going bankrupt."
He further explained that the government borrows money to pay for Social Security, and the amount retirees receive is multiple times what they paid in. This exchange underscores the widespread misunderstanding of how Social Security functions.
The conversation also veered towards crime, with Shapiro criticizing the Democrats' stance on President Trump's crackdown on crime.
He argued, "If the position you end up taking is that there is no serious crime emergency in Chicago ... or that the crime isn't that big of a deal ... Trump is going to win that battle all day long." This statement highlights the Democrats' tone-deaf approach to crime, which could potentially backfire in their face.
The discussion concluded with a comical exchange about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration and President Trump's tariff policy. One of the Democrat panelists praised FDR while criticizing Trump's tariff policy, to which Shapiro responded, "FDR oversaw some of the largest tariffs in American history... Why are you against what Trump is doing because he's doing a much lesser version of what FDR did?" This exchange underscores the left-wing's inconsistency and selective opposition to policies they have historically supported.
This debate serves as a microcosm of the left-wing's approach to politics. They often oppose policies not based on their merits, but because of their personal animosity towards the individual proposing them. This approach often leads to the disregard of verifiable facts, further fueling the political divide.
Login