(((My Fellow Americans))) #59: Mortgage Interest Deduction JAM!

DISCLOSURE

FULL TRANSCRIPT TEXT

02:01
[Applause]
02:01
[Music]
02:07
beautiful you’re watching my fellow
02:12
Americans with your host spike yes thank
02:20
you thank you so much for joining me
02:25
thank you keep clapping clap for the
02:30
miracle clap to the ponies clap for this
02:34
campaign how would we know that you
02:35
wanted ponies if you didn’t keep
02:37
clapping welcome to my fellow Americans
02:39
I am literally spike Cohen guys I am so
02:42
happy to have you on this on this
02:44
episode for this very special mortgage
02:46
interest deduction Jam edition of my
02:50
fellow Americans in a few moments we
02:51
will have two men come on and fight in a
02:53
no-holds-barred to the death cage match
02:57
Oxford style debate that no one is
02:59
prepared for least of all myself this is
03:02
a muddied waters media production as
03:03
always check us out on Facebook YouTube
03:05
Instagram anchor Twitter periscope
03:08
iTunes Google Play float check us out on
03:10
I Heart Radio Spotify everywhere
03:13
anywhere that you could think of someone
03:15
being on the Internet
03:16
check us out there because we are there
03:18
when this program is over find us on all
03:21
of these platforms like us on all of
03:23
them follow us on all of them five star
03:25
US or 10 star us on all of them and hit
03:27
that Bell if applicable
03:29
I think only on YouTube and be sure to
03:31
share this video right now the last
03:33
thing that any of us wants is for your
03:36
closest loved ones to miss out on an
03:38
hour-long libertarian broadcast on a
03:41
Wednesday night be sure to give the gift
03:43
of spike Cohen today kids love it this
03:46
program of course is brought to you by
03:49
the libertarian dadbod calendar
03:51
featuring sexy libertarian men like this
03:54
man right here spike Cohen mr. April the
03:56
sweet summer boy featuring many of your
03:58
other of your favorite sexy libertarian
04:00
men be sure to get this calendar day
04:02
it’s only $12 on libertarian dad bought
04:05
calm you of course want to be able to
04:08
hang this from your fridge or wherever
04:12
you wouldn’t hang sexy libertarian men
04:14
from in your home libertarian dad bought
04:16
calm this episode is also brought to
04:18
by the libertarian party Waffle House
04:19
caucus the fastest-growing Waffle House
04:22
related caucus in the Libertarian Party
04:24
check us out we are growing each and
04:27
every day this episode of course is also
04:29
brought to you by the vermin spike 2020
04:32
campaign we are the current frontrunner
04:35
for the Libertarian Party nomination
04:37
because of course we are and with your
04:39
support together we will ride our ponies
04:41
into a zombie powered future with cheesy
04:44
bread and Badgers for all ladies and
04:49
gentlemen thank you so much and of
04:50
course the intro and outro music to this
04:52
in every episode of my fellow Americans
04:54
comes from the amazing and talented mr.
04:55
Joe Davi that is Jay Odie avi check him
04:59
out on Facebook SoundCloud go to Joe
05:01
Davi music Bandcamp calm by his entire
05:05
discography it’s like 25 bucks you’ll
05:07
love it Thank You mr. Joe Dhabi I’d like
05:09
to thank Kroger for this delicious
05:11
purified drinking water that I drink on
05:14
this in every episode
05:14
my fellow Americans blue Wanaka mm-hmm
05:18
you can taste the purity in that it’s
05:21
beautiful thank you so much shout out in
05:22
Teheran Turks is momentum as always guys
05:24
this is of course as a special episode
05:27
tonight is a very special night and by
05:29
that I mean that we’re about to have
05:31
bloodshed on the very streets that our
05:33
children play on to libertarian men are
05:35
about to battle it out in a brutal war
05:37
of attrition that threatens to rend
05:39
asunder everything we hold dear all to
05:41
answer once and for all the question
05:43
that keeps us awake at night our
05:45
mortgage interest deductions a good
05:47
thing or a bad thing who’s going to win
05:50
well that’s up to you to decide at the
05:52
end of this debate comment with the name
05:54
of who you thought one and we will tally
05:56
that and release the results tomorrow
05:58
night so then let’s get started
06:00
right now nope there we go our first
06:06
debater is a freedom fighter based out
06:08
of Kentucky who was involved with the
06:10
election of Savannah Maddox and the
06:12
passage of Constitutional Carry in his
06:14
spare time he enjoys walks on the beach
06:16
and horse racing he is TJ Roberts our
06:20
second debater is a regular on my fellow
06:23
Americans he is the creator and
06:24
administrator of libertarian memes for
06:26
neoliberal teens despite our great
06:29
working relationship he refused to write
06:30
a bio for
06:31
me to make this show prep just slightly
06:33
easier and so here I am now reading what
06:36
I wrote about him he is of course Sam
06:39
Coppinger and finally to bear witness to
06:43
this tragic senseless violence is a
06:46
cartoonishly adorable home for sale will
06:49
someone buy me I sure hope so we will be
06:54
finding out tonight gentlemen thank you
06:57
for joining me thanks for having me
06:59
again
07:00
I am looking forward to it so before we
07:03
get the started what have you guys been
07:05
up to TJ what’s going on with you oh not
07:08
much right now just doing a couple
07:11
things that aren’t exactly ready for
07:14
public release quite yet but otherwise
07:18
just here to defend keep it okay cool
07:26
and Sam what’s how have you been doing
07:27
I just lost audio for TJ’s let so you
07:31
should know that first but other than
07:33
that I’m doing swell I’ve just
07:37
introduced a new era in the evolution of
07:41
the page the libertarian memes for
07:43
neoliberal teens that is more diverse
07:46
content than just the beams themselves
07:48
as sharing articles and other opinions
07:51
and things like that and also more
07:53
importantly I’ve just launched the
07:54
official merch store which does not just
07:57
mean black t-shirts with the neoliberal
08:00
teens written on them in black text its
08:02
designs that I thought I like I’ve spent
08:05
a lot of time on and for people of
08:07
neoliberal or libertarian interests I
08:09
think they’ll be appealing it’s on red
08:11
bubble and there are currently three
08:13
designs with more on the way and they
08:15
can be gotten on stickers or shirts or
08:18
lots of other products very good and
08:20
that’s on your Facebook page yep okay
08:23
cool how see what have you been up to
08:24
well I just been waiting for someone to
08:27
buy me and I sure hope that happens soon
08:29
that is the last time I will be doing
08:31
that by the way thank you good well guys
08:34
TJ I just want to check your audio real
08:35
quick cuz we did lose you for a second
08:37
oh good
08:43
all right so we will we will try to
08:46
figure that out and in that I mean that
08:51
TJ is not on this call all right let me
08:54
try reaching out to him and in the
08:57
meantime I will get started actually
09:00
that’s probably not fair because he was
09:02
not in the call here we go so we’re
09:06
gonna call TJ Roberts so you were saying
09:10
Sam so that the link to that is in the
09:13
is on your page so if people want to buy
09:16
neo-liberal merch they’ll be able to do
09:18
that
09:18
yeah that’s pinned to the top of the
09:22
post it should or the top of the page it
09:23
should be the first post that you see if
09:25
you navigate to the page okay good well
09:29
that is good well folks we’re having a
09:31
bit of an issue in that TJ’s TJ’s
09:39
computer has bricked suppose this means
09:45
I win by default then what we’re about
09:47
to find out I may have to tell the
09:52
opposite side of that hold on we will
10:02
see we may just give your side of this
10:06
and then do this for a future you can
10:10
you could play devil’s advocate yeah his
10:16
computer’s bricked up and frozen so Sam
10:25
Sam you ignorant see no um okay so
10:30
all right let’s here’s how we were gonna
10:31
do this and we’ll have to figure out how
10:34
this was gonna work here was the rules
10:37
that I was going to set forth and what I
10:38
may do is just let you give your side
10:40
and do devil’s advocate I think that
10:42
might work but so here’s we’re gonna do
10:44
it now with our new new and improved
10:46
modified rules to the mortgage interest
10:48
deduction jam that I’m coming with up
10:50
with as I read how we were originally
10:52
gonna do it first each of you are going
10:54
to be given four minutes to give an
10:55
opening statement that means that you
10:57
Sam
10:57
will be giving an opening statement next
11:00
I’m going to ask you I was gonna ask two
11:03
questions it’s kind of pointless now I’m
11:04
gonna ask one question you will each be
11:06
given you will you Sam will be given
11:09
three minutes to answer and if you
11:10
mention my name I will have a minute to
11:12
respond actually I’m gonna talk whenever
11:13
I want to it doesn’t really matter after
11:15
that you will be given a chance to ask
11:18
me a question this really makes no sense
11:20
in this context then I’m going to
11:23
present some questions from followers
11:24
and commenters and you will have up to
11:27
three minutes to answer I’m not really
11:29
timing this at this point you can answer
11:31
as much as you want and for those of you
11:33
watching feel free to leave your
11:34
questions and I will try to get to many
11:35
as many of them as possible and then
11:37
each of you you each of Sam will be
11:41
given three minutes to give your closing
11:43
remarks and then our lovely beautiful
11:45
and brilliant viewing audience who I can
11:47
totally tell have been working out will
11:48
comment whether you have one or two how
11:51
C has won either you were how see how
11:54
she is nota I would have been keeping
11:57
time by using our Muddy Waters media
11:58
brand egg timer but Matt Hicks bought it
12:01
from me eggy we love you and we miss you
12:03
please come home in the meantime I will
12:06
be using a digital timer gentlemen this
12:09
is a libertarian debate and as such we
12:10
will not tolerate any violations of the
12:12
non-aggression principle any such
12:14
violations will be met with whatever
12:15
level of defensive violence is necessary
12:17
up to and including nuclear weapons as
12:20
always if you choose to strip naked
12:22
during this debate I will not be sharing
12:24
any of the ad revenue for you Sam you’re
12:29
gonna be arguing in favor of this
12:30
statement the mortgage interest
12:31
deduction is an act of social
12:33
engineering and distortive economic
12:36
intervention by government
12:38
let me get my timer out here we go uh
12:45
let me see here so opening statements so
12:50
I guess I guess we’re gonna be giving
12:54
maybe I’ll give an opening statement I
12:56
don’t know we will start with whomever
12:58
is able that’s not really fair because I
13:00
know the answers to these I want I just
13:01
want to know if you know the answers to
13:02
these we’re gonna use trivia to figure
13:04
out who is gonna go first but now I just
13:06
want to figure I just want to know if
13:07
you know the answer to this so I want to
13:10
know if you’re able to answer a very
13:12
obscure trivia question you will be
13:13
given 30 seconds to answer good luck the
13:17
question is which US president
13:20
previously served twice as an
13:23
executioner good luck as an executioner
13:27
execution I I do not know presumably
13:36
somebody from either the 18th or early
13:40
19th century so you know no answer
13:48
Warren Harding I have no answer it was
13:52
Grover Cleveland Grover Cleveland yeah
13:57
Grover Cleveland and so okay so we I
14:01
have it I did anticipate that you may
14:03
not know the answer to that and so I
14:06
have a backup question which is and you
14:11
have to get the closest answer and then
14:14
you you win good luck what year did the
14:22
Sultana sink what year did the Sultana
14:24
sink the year of the sinking of the
14:26
Sultana good luck well it’s the Sultana
14:29
it’s a it’s a boat
14:32
you can Lotus you could literally just
14:35
say a number you’re losing audio now oh
14:39
good you could just you could just say a
14:44
number Sam
14:48
1953 okay well that is the closest guess
14:52
that anyone has given so you win it’s
14:55
actually 1865 all right so you were not
15:00
even remotely close but that’s okay um
15:04
all right good so so because we have
15:07
lost TJ this debate is largely pointless
15:11
but you’re already live and so I’m gonna
15:13
milk this for everything it’s worth so
15:16
you will be giving an opening statement
15:18
now you will have four minutes to give
15:20
your statement you will be arguing
15:22
against mortgage interest deductions so
15:26
whenever you are ready go
15:30
needless to say this is not a topic that
15:32
interests most people or that any
15:34
libertarians or virtually anybody else
15:36
for that matter spend any amount of time
15:38
focusing on at all however it does
15:40
actually have some important
15:42
repercussions and as worthy of
15:43
discussion especially by libertarians
15:45
who love to debate about things
15:47
endlessly for no reason anyway this
15:49
actually does have an impact on the
15:50
world and deserves our attention as
15:52
spike said in the opening statement that
15:55
I will be arguing for or at least the
15:57
statement of my position the mortgage
16:00
interest deduction is an act of social
16:03
engineering by government ineffective at
16:05
that but that is the effort nonetheless
16:06
and it also distorts markets raises the
16:09
price of housing is deeply regressive
16:13
and how it effects the poor because
16:18
everything in American society does it
16:20
has racist implications to it and a lot
16:23
more bad stuff so we’ll kind of take
16:25
those one by one first of all the social
16:27
engineering aspect this is no conspiracy
16:29
theory this is pretty openly what the
16:31
point of the mortgage interest deduction
16:32
was in the first place was kind of
16:35
post-war the government wanted to
16:38
encourage homeownership because they
16:40
thought that nuclear family units with
16:43
you know one mother one father
16:45
two and a half kids and a single-family
16:48
suburban home was the most effective and
16:51
structured and positive way for society
16:55
to be organized so they wanted to
16:57
encourage that lifestyle by making it in
17:01
theory easier for people to own homes
17:04
and make it cheaper for them to do so so
17:07
that more people could do it and that
17:09
they could all be a nice little
17:10
government-approved families now on that
17:14
measure as if that’s not disturbing
17:16
enough from a libertarian perspective
17:17
that government is encouraging a
17:20
particular lifestyle and discouraging
17:22
others which that should be you know
17:28
should not like that um it did not work
17:31
anyway if you look at homeownership
17:33
rates of the United States where we do
17:35
have a mortgage interest deduction
17:36
compared to somewhere like Canada or the
17:39
UK or much of other Western Europe the
17:42
homeownership sar virtually identical
17:44
and being able to deduct our mortgage
17:47
interest does not actually an encourage
17:50
homeownership here anymore than it does
17:52
they’re not having it so even if you
17:55
believe that homeownership is good and
17:57
you have no problem with government
17:58
socially engineering the way that we
18:00
should all live our lives it was not
18:02
effective in that regard
18:03
anyway now the economics of it is that
18:07
it actually raises the price of housing
18:09
for everybody because if you are going
18:13
to buy a house and you know that you are
18:16
going to be able to deduct the cost of
18:18
the interest that you are paying on your
18:20
mortgage loan from your taxable income
18:22
you are going to spend more on a house
18:25
than you would otherwise because the
18:26
cost is artificially lowered by
18:28
government picking a winner and loser
18:30
and picking what you should be doing
18:32
with your life and so they are
18:33
encouraging a particular kind of
18:34
behavior which makes it cheaper to
18:36
engage in that behavior however because
18:39
people are more willing to pay a higher
18:40
price because they know that they’ll get
18:42
that deduction cut off later that raises
18:45
the price of housing for everybody and
18:46
that includes for renters as well
18:48
so it raises the price of rent it raises
18:51
the price of housing it raises the price
18:53
of land and it generally distorts the
18:57
market because of a specific action
18:59
government has undertaken it is also
19:01
extremely regressive in its effect it
19:04
benefits almost exclusively the highest
19:07
income earners in the United States
19:09
because that’s who owns homes and you’re
19:12
able to deduct up to $1,000,000 off of
19:15
it I think that has recently been cut by
19:17
the Trump administration one of the very
19:18
very few think good things that he is
19:20
actually done however it still exists
19:25
and it benefits the highest income
19:26
earners at the expense of the poor and
19:28
it’s not just a thing of I hear this
19:32
argument from a lot of like ancap
19:34
leading libertarians off and of well oh
19:36
you know taxation is theft so anytime we
19:38
can reduce the amount of theft that’s
19:40
good and that’s not really how it works
19:41
when you look at it with any more than
19:44
most simplistic view because if you’re
19:47
artificially lowering taxes for one
19:49
group of people that’s essentially
19:50
raising them for everybody else if price
19:52
or if spending is held constant which it
19:55
is going to be just because they’re
19:56
earning less tax income does not mean
19:58
the government is going to spend less
20:00
they’re still spending the same act
20:01
regardless ten seconds you can interject
20:07
if you want I could probably go on for a
20:09
long time but let’s have some
20:11
back-and-forth okay cool so because
20:13
again you are now the only participant a
20:16
lot of how this was gonna be structured
20:19
makes little to no sense so I’m gonna be
20:21
changing it but I’m still having to go
20:23
by how I have it structured so I guess
20:24
this is this is where I was gonna have
20:25
moderator questions I guess is gonna be
20:27
more back and forth discussion slash
20:29
debate as opposed to me asking you a
20:32
question and then asking someone else a
20:33
question
20:33
I am spike Cohen and I am the moderator
20:36
and these are my questions I will be
20:40
asking a series of questions that are
20:43
either critical of your argument or
20:45
examine it further and you have as long
20:48
as you want to I mean at this point
20:49
we’re just talking between the duals um
20:50
so this was my original question I was
20:53
originally originally gonna ask you a
20:54
question that is critical to your
20:56
argument I was gonna ask
20:57
TJ one that was critical to his it
21:00
doesn’t really make sense for me to ask
21:01
the one that’s critical to TJ’s because
21:02
it’s basically what you just said so
21:04
here’s my question for you that’s that’s
21:06
critical to your argument Sam
21:08
neither of us I don’t think want any
21:11
kind of government
21:12
distortion of the market but we also
21:14
don’t live in a vacuum and we don’t live
21:17
in a situation where we can you know
21:18
perfectly pick and choose what kind of
21:20
things happen within government whether
21:23
it’s deductions or additional taxes or
21:25
reductions in taxes we kind of are often
21:27
fighting for what we can get considering
21:29
the fact that we aren’t able to just
21:31
eliminate all taxation and you know
21:33
transition to some kind of voluntary
21:34
payment system or have a perfectly fair
21:37
tax or regulatory system isn’t it good
21:40
to fight for any kind of tax deduction
21:42
that anyone can get with the idea that
21:44
we just always keep pushing for fewer
21:46
and fewer taxes and more and more
21:47
deductions and just getting them
21:48
whenever we can and if not why not
21:51
that’s a very oversimplified view that
21:54
doesn’t take into account what
21:55
libertarianism is actually fighting for
21:57
because it’s not as simplistic as just
22:00
taxes are bad less taxes are good when
22:02
tax when tax subset it is a subsidy if
22:05
libertarians don’t like subsidies and
22:07
some people are dumb and don’t think
22:09
that tax subsidies count as subsidies
22:12
but I assure you that they do when the
22:15
government subsidizes something that
22:16
does distort the market and encourages
22:19
specific kinds of behavior or specific
22:21
industries at the expense of others that
22:23
is government picking winners and losers
22:25
and interjecting itself into the market
22:26
and preventing it from working as
22:28
efficiently as it should and that really
22:29
should be a greater libertarian priority
22:32
than just talks is Obed is ensuring that
22:34
the market can operate as it’s supposed
22:37
to because we know that we ought to all
22:39
respect as libertarians that the market
22:41
is a very efficient effective way of
22:44
achieving the best outcomes for society
22:46
but when government interjects itself
22:48
into at those markets and interferes
22:51
with their natural course and their
22:52
ability to function we get worse
22:54
outcomes for people and really that
22:55
should be what we’re focused on is
22:57
getting the best outcomes for people
23:01
okay fair enough but I guess what I’m
23:04
trying to say is what our time not be
23:07
better spent on just pushing forward so
23:09
for example well actually I’m gonna be
23:12
addressing this in another question so
23:13
we can go back to that you would mention
23:15
that the original purpose and I didn’t
23:18
because I wasn’t actually gonna be
23:19
debating this I didn’t you know event
23:21
any of this kind of stuff but you would
23:23
said that the original purpose of the
23:24
mortgage interest deduction was to try
23:26
to encourage nuclear families to buy
23:27
single-family homes in the post-war
23:29
setting and you know one with the whole
23:31
baby boom going on and everything else
23:32
and that you know that that was a type
23:35
of social engineering and it assuming
23:37
that that’s true you don’t have to be a
23:40
nuclear family or be purchasing a
23:42
single-family home to get a mortgage or
23:45
to purchase a home you could if you’re a
23:49
single non-binary person who chooses to
23:52
you know get a you know get a condo or a
23:56
flat somewhere you can also get a
23:58
mortgage for that or if you wanted to
24:00
you know whatever if you want to be a
24:02
polyamorous you know commune and
24:04
purchase a attractive land now you know
24:07
to you know have your mutual aid society
24:09
in or whatever you could do that as well
24:12
in light of that is this still social
24:15
engineering and if so why it’s still an
24:18
encouraging I mean the things that you
24:21
said are true yeah those people could
24:22
get a mortgage but obviously the the
24:24
vast like 95 plus percent majority of
24:27
people are getting a mortgage to get a
24:28
house for their single family which is
24:30
fine and I want to do that someday when
24:32
I’m older too and that’s fine that’s a
24:34
perfectly valid decision that anybody
24:36
can make I have like I don’t have a
24:38
problem against single-family housing as
24:40
a concept or if anybody wants to buy
24:43
them I have a problem with government
24:45
encouraging one specific kind of
24:47
behavior over others and that behavior
24:49
is home ownership in owning a
24:53
single-family home which is what the
24:55
mortgage interest deduction was intended
24:58
for in the first place even though like
24:59
I said it wasn’t very effective at that
25:02
anyway ok buddy but even still ok so so
25:08
yes the fact is that in a
25:11
heteronormative mostly while I’m you
25:14
didn’t even mention race by na-na-na
25:16
society where the vast majority people
25:17
are the heterosexuals sis had people
25:19
that are looking to create a family and
25:22
that like you even said it’s something
25:24
you want to do is the fact that the
25:26
majority of people is that not
25:29
substantive how is that different from
25:30
saying that for example we shouldn’t
25:32
have an you know Earned Income Tax
25:33
Credit or you know a lower income tax
25:36
because the majority of people that are
25:38
going to be using
25:39
or you know sis had heterosexual people
25:43
who want to create a family basically we
25:48
shouldn’t have have many kinds of
25:50
deductions at all
25:52
like most deductions are a bad thing
25:55
that our social engineering and distort
25:57
markets like if we’re if we are to have
25:59
to have taxes especially like an income
26:02
tax it should be pretty much flat across
26:04
the board not encouraging or
26:05
discouraging any particular kind of
26:07
behavior or subsidizing or punishing any
26:09
particular industry okay um this and and
26:16
you can tell me where I’m wrong I know
26:18
where you’re gonna tell me where I’m
26:19
wrong but in not in application but in
26:24
philosophy this feels in my mind in
26:30
partially how you’ve presented it as
26:32
being similar to the the libertarian
26:35
pro-immigration control argument in that
26:38
it argues for additional government
26:41
intrusion into something in this case
26:43
attacks because of other infringement
26:46
that are already in place such as you
26:48
know zoning or you know other taxing the
26:51
taxes and regulations that are in place
26:53
that harm the poor or you know try to
26:56
create a middle class at the at the at
27:00
the expense of the poor again wouldn’t
27:03
it be better just to push for
27:04
deregulation in the housing market that
27:06
would allow for lower income earners to
27:08
purchase homes so that this wouldn’t be
27:09
as distortive and in favoring of higher
27:11
income earners and and being less
27:13
progressive I’ve been that’s fine yeah
27:16
we should absolutely be calling for D
27:18
zoning at least episode anyway but
27:20
that’s not really relevant to my
27:22
position on this issue it’s that it is a
27:25
market distort of tax not just like the
27:28
zoning thing really doesn’t have
27:30
anything to do with it I’m not really
27:31
sure where you got that from that again
27:33
it they if you look at the economics of
27:36
it if you were incentivizing and
27:38
subsidizing it the car the affordability
27:42
of housing it by allowing people like so
27:45
if you go and do with something else if
27:49
you go skydiving every week going
27:51
skydiving trips of
27:53
the government doesn’t subsidize that
27:54
behavior but it does subsidize
27:56
homeownership but that’s just a
27:58
particular you know behavior that our
28:00
choice that some people make a
28:02
government subsidizes it by making the
28:03
price artificially cheaper in not
28:07
allowing the supply and demand you know
28:09
the market system to function properly
28:12
it raises the price of housing because
28:14
government is artificially lowering the
28:16
cost of the interest on the mortgage
28:20
loans and another reason that that’s a
28:22
big problem economically is if you know
28:24
the subsidy isn’t enough and interfering
28:27
in the market is that it encourages very
28:29
financially risky behavior because it
28:32
encourages people to take out as large
28:34
of a loan as they can and basically put
28:37
down as little as they can or there’s
28:41
there’s no we should if anything if
28:44
government was to subsidize a particular
28:46
kind of behavior or choice which should
28:48
not do but if it was going to it should
28:50
be done in a way to subsidize putting
28:53
the maximum amount down that people will
28:55
be willing to do so they’ll be less
28:58
likely to default on their loans and
29:00
cause a housing crash like we saw in
29:01
2008 but what the mortgage interest
29:04
deduction does is it encourage people to
29:06
take out a larger mortgage loan because
29:09
they know that they won’t have to pay
29:10
the interest on that or you know that
29:14
the interest payment will be subsidized
29:16
on it anyway right okay so so your
29:20
argument is essentially across the board
29:22
that there shouldn’t be these different
29:24
carve outs for certain type of behaviors
29:26
that it should essentially just be
29:28
whatever the taxes should be kind of a
29:30
flat across-the-board thing and that it
29:32
shouldn’t be trying to pick winners and
29:34
losers in terms of what you know what
29:37
what kind of economic behaviors or
29:41
actions are being taken
29:43
you know incentivizing them or D
29:44
incentivizing them yeah exactly that’s a
29:47
very standard libertarian point of view
29:49
that government should not be in the
29:51
business of encouraging or discouraging
29:52
particular behaviors so as long as they
29:55
don’t harm anybody else okay fair enough
29:58
so in the interest of beek for two
30:01
reasons first of all in the interest
30:02
that you that of not company
30:06
the person that was prepared to debate
30:08
this their computer pricked and because
30:11
I didn’t really have time to really sink
30:13
into debating what I don’t necessarily
30:16
disagree with and haven’t had time to
30:18
really vet that out in the interest of
30:20
that I think I’m going to agree with you
30:23
to the extent that the government
30:25
shouldn’t be distorting things and if we
30:27
are able to reschedule this debate then
30:29
we can do that I’m going to let you do
30:31
your well actually no so we have some
30:36
well I’ll let you do your closing
30:38
remarks cuz the rest of the follower
30:40
questions and the thing I want to talk
30:42
to you about doesn’t have anything to do
30:43
with this I’ll let you give your closing
30:44
remarks you have I mean are there any
30:46
audience questions about this issue or
30:49
not about this so far no I do have some
30:54
false anybody watching at all oh yeah
30:56
yeah no we have people watching and I
30:57
definitely have some follower questions
30:59
but none of them are about this so so
31:03
yeah so if you want that’s why I was
31:04
saying if you want to just give your
31:05
closing remarks on this and then we’ll
31:07
get to the other stuff and we can we can
31:09
do that so whenever you are ready you
31:13
can give your you can give your closing
31:17
statement I mean you know there are a
31:19
few more things to mention of why them
31:20
we should oppose the mortgage interest
31:22
deduction anyway I may have gone through
31:24
how it is social engineering how it was
31:26
ineffective social engineering if you do
31:28
happen to agree with that the purpose
31:29
was good it didn’t work in any way it
31:31
raises the price for everybody else it
31:33
raises rent costs which is most people’s
31:35
largest expense so you’re taking money
31:37
right out of people’s wallets because it
31:39
subsidizes one behavior and it
31:42
inherently punishes others because the
31:44
spending of government will remain the
31:46
same and they’re since they’re losing
31:48
all of this tax revenue from a
31:50
particular group of people they’re just
31:51
getting it from either others or adding
31:54
it on to the debt which is just taxing
31:55
future generations
31:56
it is extremely regressive because this
31:59
is a particular benefit the only people
32:00
in the higher income brackets are able
32:02
to take advantage of while they’re
32:04
renting class does not get to have this
32:07
advantage they must pay the full price
32:09
for their housing which as I said
32:11
earlier is more expensive because of
32:13
this it is also like I said this is
32:16
gonna sound hysterical because everybody
32:19
thinks that
32:20
you know bring race into anything is
32:21
hysterical but it’s it is just a factual
32:24
reality in America that racism infects
32:27
almost every sector of society that
32:30
deeply includes home ownership if you
32:32
look at home ownership rates between
32:34
white or maybe Asian families and black
32:37
or Latino families the there’s a huge
32:40
disparity in that and they’re literally
32:43
you could do a 12-part lecture series on
32:45
why that is a lot of it has to do with
32:48
you know Jim Crow laws and redlining and
32:50
all things like that but the fact of the
32:52
matter is that black homeownership is
32:55
tremendously lower so it you could
32:57
pretty much almost say that this is just
32:59
a subsidy for white people because
33:01
that’s how home ownership crossed you
33:04
know cuts across society is it is
33:06
overwhelmingly white people and maybe
33:09
Asian people who owned homes not black
33:11
people or Latino people so that’s you
33:14
know also a reason that we should oppose
33:15
it and like I said it encourages very
33:18
bad fiscal behavior that threatens the
33:20
entire economy that we saw this in the
33:22
2008 housing bubble crash that was the
33:25
greatest recession scene since the Great
33:27
Depression and this encourages that to
33:29
happen again by you know incentivizing
33:32
people to take out a larger loan than
33:34
they can really afford because the cost
33:35
of it is artificially lowered by a
33:37
government subsidy it you know
33:40
discourages people from doing the
33:41
responsible thing and saving up a larger
33:43
down payment it you know you could put
33:45
$5,000 down and get a $400,000 house and
33:50
have a mortgage payment and you’ll be
33:51
okay with that because oh you know buddy
33:53
you know the interest on it I can deduct
33:56
from my taxable income so why shouldn’t
33:58
I do that then when you know the payment
34:02
is so high if you lose your job or
34:04
something like that or you know anything
34:06
else unexpected happens and you can’t
34:07
make that payment that gives you no
34:10
significant chance to default on that
34:12
loan and if people do that and mass that
34:14
creates you know a very large problem
34:16
for the American economy as we saw
34:19
another bad thing about is this is I
34:22
guess more related to your zoning issue
34:24
kind of that you brought up it’s that
34:27
you know just it again I have no problem
34:30
with single-family home ownership and I
34:31
plan to be one so I don’t want to
34:33
I’m I don’t want to appear hypocritical
34:35
on this or anything but just still
34:37
government government encouraging
34:40
single-family ownership is not good it
34:43
should just if you want to do it on a
34:45
free marketplace with all costs that
34:47
would be naturally occurring in a free
34:49
marketplace that’s fine but when you’re
34:53
encouraging single-family ownership that
34:54
encourages you know the kind of thing
34:56
that could leads to urban sprawl which
34:59
creates worse commuter times and more
35:01
carbon pollution and less efficient use
35:04
of land and more expensive rents and all
35:08
of the rest of it and that’s just
35:10
there’s a huge ripple effect from this
35:13
issue that does not sound very
35:14
interesting or exciting or sexy but it
35:17
really does have quite an impact on
35:18
society and there are numerous reasons
35:21
that libertarians should oppose it I’m
35:23
sure that there are a lot of people you
35:24
could get the argument from better than
35:26
me I didn’t prepare at all for this and
35:28
I’m just you know kind of shooting from
35:30
the hip and probably don’t sound very
35:32
well articulate articulated right now
35:34
but you had two weeks yeah but I didn’t
35:39
prepare for it well next time you should
35:43
yeah two weeks I mean at least your
35:44
computer works so for that reason alone
35:46
with the reason so alright I guess the
35:48
only thing I would add I’m I’m sure this
35:50
is a rebuttal and I’m not sure that you
35:52
would even disagree with this if you
35:54
were going to advocate for getting rid
35:56
of the mortgage interest deduction
35:58
I would recommend coupling it with what
36:01
you would put tax reduction or deduction
36:05
or whatever you would replace it with
36:06
being something that’s more across the
36:09
board and I guess for lack of a better
36:10
word egalitarian as opposed to just
36:12
telling a bunch of homeowners you don’t
36:14
get to have your deduction anymore
36:16
instead saying everyone would be able to
36:19
get either this reduction or deduction
36:22
or credit or whatever
36:23
I made an enormity of utopian sense I I
36:27
don’t even support an income tax at all
36:29
I think it’ll be abolished in its
36:31
entirety in a very long run kind of a
36:34
sense but in the short run there should
36:36
not be any you know particular behavior
36:38
of the government is encouraging or
36:39
discouraging however Wyatt it cuts
36:42
across the society whether it’s
36:43
something that 90% of people do they
36:45
still should not be encouraging or just
36:47
edging that particular behavior because
36:49
it still has all of the negative you
36:51
know market impacting effects that I’ve
36:53
mentioned here and everything so it’s
36:55
it’s it I don’t want to replace one bad
36:59
policy with another bad policy that just
37:01
happens to help more people than it
37:03
currently does we just shouldn’t have
37:05
things like this special cut out special
37:08
carve outs that help particular
37:10
industries and hurt other particular
37:11
industries to encourage specific
37:13
behaviors and discourage others and
37:15
distort the markets in the process we
37:16
just should not have anything like that
37:18
if we are going to you know want to
37:21
lower people’s taxes which I do we
37:23
should be lowering taxes after we lower
37:25
spending because lowering taxes without
37:27
lowering spending is just increasing
37:29
taxes on future generations okay fair
37:33
enough
37:34
so okay cool so guys you now get to
37:39
decide who you thought won this debate
37:42
do you think it was do you think that
37:44
Sam won this debate do you think that TJ
37:47
who whose computer bricked very early do
37:51
you think he won this debate by not
37:52
being here or do you think house he won
37:55
maybe thought house e1 I don’t know um
37:57
so now that we’ve moved on before we go
38:01
to the follower follower questions as
38:05
you may or may not know Sam and my
38:08
lovely followers we had a very
38:11
interesting thing happen earlier today
38:12
where your very own spike Cohen was on a
38:17
local news program and because we have
38:20
the time for it I’m gonna go ahead and
38:23
show that now and I want to get your
38:27
thoughts on this on this program to eat
38:30
Sam so I’m gonna put this on right Oh
38:34
goes well this man could be on the
38:36
ballot November yeah can you hear that
38:38
no I can see it but they tell you
38:46
they’re riding ponies into a zombie
38:48
power to future but in okay all right so
38:51
we’re gonna start that over again this
38:52
is the this is my this is my thing and
38:57
I’m gonna get your thoughts on this
39:00
nope all goes well this man could be on
39:03
the ballot in November
39:04
yeah abc15 dick pepid onus is live with
39:06
the studio to show us I still can’t hear
39:08
it you can’t hear it he’s using to
39:11
deliver his message they tell you
39:13
they’re riding ponies into a zombie
39:15
powered future but an interview in spike
39:17
Cohen’s living room has given them
39:18
nothing all had turned its volume up
39:21
loud and still nothing all goes well
39:30
this man could be on the ballot in
39:31
November
39:32
yeah ABC 15 to dick pepper doughnuts is
39:34
live at the studio did you hear now the
39:36
unconventional strategy he’s using to
39:38
deliver his message they tell you about
39:41
riding ponies into a zombie power to
39:44
future but an interview in spike Cohen’s
39:45
living room has given them a serious
39:47
political platform are you recording I
39:51
you’re not hearing this
39:52
no well that’s alright Doug crawl says
39:59
house he won the debate but spike won
40:01
our hearts so that’s one for house he
40:03
but we’ll see who else gets it so I’m
40:06
gonna go through some of these other
40:07
questions that came in from followers
40:11
number one of course whenever I have any
40:16
question follower question session this
40:19
comes in Sam
40:22
Waffle House or I haunt I live in the
40:26
Pacific Northwest and I’ve never been to
40:27
a Waffle House so that’s the wrong
40:31
answer
40:32
the answer is Waffle House um whoa I’ll
40:35
give it to Waffle House anyway though
40:37
because Waffle House seems like it has
40:39
more kind of unique cultural value than
40:41
IHOP like Waffle House has like a
40:44
distinct regional identity to it kind of
40:46
a culture about i UPS literally just
40:48
like a chain restaurant so I’ll give it
40:51
to Waffle House anyway okay good that’s
40:53
the right answer
40:54
and then here was one that a follower
40:56
asked are you voting for spike for
40:59
vice-president and why not ouch
41:02
absolutely not no even if I get the
41:05
knowledge do you will you come with up
41:08
as a package with vermin don’t you I
41:11
mean it it just I I don’t know how this
41:13
is being
41:14
they just said are you voting for spike
41:15
as vice president so I guess you can
41:18
take that however you want to a man if
41:19
it’s a literal question I’m not probably
41:21
going to be there to vote anyway so this
41:24
would just have to be it kind of in
41:26
spirit thing and I who else is even
41:28
running for vice president here the only
41:30
candidate I know of so it was me and
41:33
John Phillips jr. and Jeff wood they
41:36
drummed out right yeah john phillips and
41:38
kim roth dropped out and kim endorsed me
41:40
and john didn’t endorse anyone because
41:42
he’s an LNC member and didn’t want to be
41:44
seen as showing favoritism so it’s me
41:48
and Jeff wood I don’t know who he is to
41:52
see like a miser sky or is he like a
41:54
Tsar war kind of guy he is
41:56
he currently has the nomination from the
41:59
socialist caucus and the audacious
42:01
caucus
42:02
no thank you so then you support me
42:06
among those traces I support oh yeah so
42:09
would you vote for me in the general if
42:11
I get the nomination like the general
42:15
election against the Democrats and
42:17
Republicans yes
42:19
well again are you a package with vermin
42:22
because I’m not voting for Herman so you
42:25
wouldn’t vote for vermin over Donald
42:27
Trump and say Joe Biden no okay so
42:33
assuming you’re someone you would want
42:36
as the president pick gets the
42:40
nomination and I get the VP pick would
42:45
you vote for me I would like this is the
42:49
answer that you want to hear and it’s
42:50
not fun for your audience but I would
42:52
honestly hope that in the case that we
42:53
actually got just on Amash to run for
42:57
president anyone our nomination which he
42:59
obviously would I would hope that you
43:01
would have the decency to step aside and
43:03
have him kind of pick somebody that he
43:05
wants us as running mate because I think
43:06
that you know that you would harm the
43:08
ticket by not having an experience of
43:10
being a goofball you’re a fun podcast
43:12
host but you are not qualified to be a
43:15
vice presidential candidate especially
43:17
next to somebody like Justin Amash you
43:19
heard it here folks
43:20
that is a full-on support for the vermin
43:22
spike 2020 ticket from none other than
43:24
Sam Coppinger of libertarian memes for
43:27
Neil
43:27
Merl teens so the next follower question
43:31
was bound to be a real hootenanny but
43:34
now TJ’s not here but I’ll go ahead and
43:36
get your thoughts on it and and then I
43:39
guess we can because I think that was Oh
43:44
Steven Messina you have a new fan with
43:47
Steven Messina who says that you effing
43:50
rule and thank you have clearly not been
43:55
to a Waffle House so let’s see here um
43:59
so yeah so here’s the last question
44:02
which I’m just gonna let you answer it
44:04
because again this was gonna be a big
44:05
debate question but now it’s not because
44:07
it’s just you what are your thoughts on
44:09
the Mises caucus negative like I feel
44:17
like most of the people who are watching
44:19
probably already know me and probably
44:21
already know my opinions of the is it me
44:23
sisters of Isis is it Mises so my
44:26
understanding is that it’s Mises I don’t
44:30
like that that sounds worse that was
44:35
named was said is they with Ludwig von
44:37
Mises so you hate it more because it’s
44:40
Mises and not Mises that’s it’s less
44:44
satisfying I don’t like the sound of
44:47
Mesa Selleck mices better okay we’ll say
44:49
Mises I do not like the Beezus caucus
44:52
even though on actual policy I probably
44:55
agree with them at least 90% but there’s
44:58
a lot more to politics than just sheer
45:01
policy positions and I have never really
45:04
gotten a clear answer from anybody in
45:06
the Mises caucus either the ones who I
45:07
think are the the less malicious members
45:10
of it of what exactly its purpose is
45:13
supposed to be because the actual policy
45:15
positions of it are already shared by
45:17
the libertarian party itself we it’s
45:19
already a very very radical capitalist
45:22
party a very you know radical
45:25
libertarian party and it shares
45:29
virtually the exact same platform as the
45:31
caucus does so that leaves the only
45:33
differentiating factor being their kind
45:36
of branding and strategy which is very
45:39
clearly just to appeal
45:41
two disaffected paleo conservatives and
45:44
they outright that’s just literally the
45:45
only logical purpose of what it is for
45:48
that’s not you know a slander it’s it’s
45:50
logically the only thing that it is
45:53
there to accomplish because anything
45:55
else that it it could be distinguished
45:59
by is already shared by the party itself
46:01
that is the only differentiating factor
46:02
between the Libertarian Party and the
46:04
Mises caucus is that the Mises caucus
46:07
uses branding that is appealing to the
46:10
all right so then the fact that it’s
46:14
pronounced Mises doesn’t inspire you to
46:17
say that you love me says two pieces now
46:21
it doesn’t that’s I have heard that
46:25
actual Mises himself is not nearly as
46:29
bad as the caucus is and that the caucus
46:31
really you know has done him dirty by
46:33
dragging his name through the mud Bob of
46:35
the caucus and the Institute combined
46:37
have really disgraced his legacy but Sam
46:44
I know you’re young but the thing is
46:46
you’re gonna learn soon that you have to
46:49
find joy in things and I think you
46:51
missed out on a real opportunity with
46:53
rhyming there I’m not gonna lie I just
46:56
think I just think your politics isn’t
46:59
supposed to be about fun well I disagree
47:02
and I think that’s why I’m currently the
47:04
front because that’s yeah because you’re
47:08
you are the front-runner because all of
47:10
the other white boys in the Libertarian
47:13
Party who don’t actually care about
47:15
politics and don’t aren’t affected by
47:17
any kind of a policy one way or another
47:18
don’t have anything to lose by just
47:21
voting for who they think is fun rather
47:23
than who will actually make an impact on
47:25
their lives kids and cages on the border
47:27
don’t have that that luxury okay but
47:31
okay so now we’re actually having a
47:33
debate because I haven’t just been going
47:37
and having fun with white boys although
47:39
that is largely what these conventions
47:41
are about but I will say that I mean
47:43
I’ve been going and doing tours in
47:45
marginalized communities where I don’t
47:47
do the fun stick and talk with them
47:49
about the things that are affecting them
47:51
and it’s been very well received so I
47:53
mean I go in with a humorous attitude
47:55
about it but I don’t go in and talk
47:57
about cheesy butter or Badgers or
47:59
anything like that
48:00
and it’s been very well received because
48:02
I’m going there and demonstrating an
48:04
empathy that no other party or candidate
48:06
has shown in their in their community
48:08
that the other ones are afraid to go
48:09
there so I would dispute that I think
48:13
that yeah well that’s that part that
48:15
part’s great but why do you do the
48:16
Badgers and cheesy bread the rest of the
48:18
time because that just undermines
48:21
everything that you’re doing by reaching
48:22
out to these marginalized communities
48:24
because when you do the Badger Badgers
48:26
and cheesy bread that just ensures that
48:27
you won’t actually accomplish any of the
48:29
changes that you’re asking these people
48:31
you know that they want that they can
48:35
tell you what you want you could learn
48:36
what they want you can you know sit down
48:38
with them and have a long discussion
48:39
about what would help them but you’re
48:41
not going to accomplish any of that if
48:42
you’re talking about Badgers and cheesy
48:44
bread to the general public but you say
48:46
that and yet I’m getting more engagement
48:48
than any other candidate running and and
48:51
and in the way the limit in the Waco
48:54
that’s in the workers John Phillips
48:55
dropping out no one else stepped in
48:57
because apparently I’ve become the
49:00
consensus candidate and I’m as I will
49:01
say I am as shocked as anyone else that
49:05
I’ve become the consensus candidate
49:07
apparently but I have and to say
49:11
simultaneously oh well it’s just because
49:14
people are enjoying that and also well
49:16
it’s not gonna get any results it’s
49:18
gotten results so if I’m able to for the
49:21
people that sense you say it hasn’t put
49:24
any results within the Libertarian Party
49:27
primary system are absolutely
49:30
meaninglessly and significant it’s even
49:34
among libertarians there’s maybe like 1%
49:37
participating in any way formal or
49:40
informal in this process and that that’s
49:43
among libertarians who themselves are a
49:45
statistically insignificant portion of
49:47
the general public what happens within
49:49
the libertarian party has literally no
49:52
impact or representation or significance
49:55
whatsoever of the general public in it
49:58
so then in that occasion why or results
50:00
among candidates or policy positions or
50:02
anything nothing that libertarians do
50:04
within the party has any relevance to
50:07
the general public
50:08
within the party in and of itself no but
50:10
what assuming if I got the nomination
50:12
then I would actually have an
50:14
opportunity to reach out to people and
50:15
if you’re if you’re talking about you
50:17
know if your response to that because
50:18
you made some valid points there but if
50:20
then if your response is that we need to
50:22
nominate someone who is currently in
50:24
trouble posit being able to possibly get
50:26
reelected in his own home district how
50:28
is that somehow a substantive positive
50:31
change of someone who in your I guess I
50:34
assume in your mind is someone that’s
50:36
going to be making this this amazing
50:38
positive change if the fact that just in
50:40
a mash would not suck up to trump is
50:43
enough for him to not be able to
50:44
possibly get reelected in his own
50:46
district what would make you think that
50:48
he would be any more able to effect
50:53
positive change on a cultural or
50:54
societal level than someone like averman
50:56
supreme who already is a household name
50:58
among many people for what i could dare
51:02
guarantee you that more people know
51:03
justin amash than firmance supreme
51:05
that’s that’s actually factually
51:07
incorrect I mean there’s multiple layer
51:09
I believe you it’s it’s not even close
51:12
actually I mean that they did the
51:14
recognition of of Justin um between
51:16
Justin Amash and vermin supreme within
51:18
political circles there’s probably a
51:20
slight number that know him better
51:21
within general societal circles it’s not
51:24
even close I mean we we blame there is
51:25
no who Amash is they do not know who
51:27
Furman supreme is Hara nobody knows who
51:31
Furman supreme is it’ll be one hundred
51:33
thirty votes well you’re saying nobody
51:36
under thirty votes and that’s certainly
51:37
not true but everyone on the
51:39
exaggeration but the proportion of
51:42
people under 30 who vote is dramatically
51:45
lower than the proportion of people over
51:47
30 who voted is that more statistically
51:49
acceptable for you it is but how much of
51:52
that is because the options that they’re
51:53
being given our garbage to them and that
51:56
they’re they see this people don’t care
51:58
and that’s the same kind of people who
52:00
support somebody like vermin supreme is
52:02
the people who don’t care if they don’t
52:05
rely to see the fur hair they don’t
52:06
carry important to lose they don’t they
52:08
don’t stand a they’re not engaged and
52:10
they just think it’s funny they don’t
52:11
know anything about politics they
52:13
probably this is just what you want
52:17
that’s one or the other
52:18
either the people who like firm and
52:20
supreme are completely unengaged and
52:21
have nothing to do
52:22
or the people who support vermin supreme
52:24
are the hyper engaged who are involved
52:26
in the Libertarian Party at a level that
52:29
the vast majority of libertarians aren’t
52:30
which is it that he’s the hyper engaged
52:33
like him or the unengaged like him
52:36
the people who are engaged in the
52:38
Libertarian Party are not engaged in
52:42
national politics generally there’s a
52:45
very small crossover there the
52:47
Libertarian Party is mostly a social
52:49
club of people who would do not feel
52:51
that they belong in either party and
52:53
that even includes me if I know
52:55
everybody thinks that I’m an
52:56
establishment goon obviously there’s a
52:58
reason that I’m in with this party and
52:59
not the other two and that’s because I
53:01
do not feel that I belong in either of
53:03
them and that’s but that’s who
53:05
libertarians are as people who don’t
53:07
feel that they belong in the amount the
53:10
proportion of people in the Libertarian
53:12
Party who even engaged in national
53:14
politics outside of the Libertarian
53:16
Party is it not very significant so you
53:20
could be hyper engaged in the party and
53:22
still disengaged from national politics
53:25
most of your supporters right now
53:27
probably won’t even vote you’re you’re
53:29
that’s patently false but the the the
53:33
the the people that are making up the
53:35
Libertarian Party are hyper engaged they
53:38
are largely ineffective because the
53:40
party is so small but they represent a
53:43
group of people they stat skew younger
53:46
and skew more cerebral and skew more you
53:49
know disaffected by that by the
53:51
disaffected and and disengaged with the
53:54
overall system because they see it as a
53:56
joke there is a whole demographic of
53:59
people that could get us to five percent
54:01
or even ten percent based just on people
54:03
who innately know that the system is a
54:06
joke and don’t participate in it because
54:07
of that and have no real idea that
54:09
there’s anything like a libertarian
54:11
party that has any viable chance if you
54:13
give them something that that you know
54:16
if you give something that speaks to
54:17
them on an innate level like for example
54:19
this whole thing is a joke so we’re
54:21
gonna give you the biggest clown and
54:22
we’re the walls so now that you’ve got
54:24
we’ve got your attention we’re going to
54:25
talk to you about what libertarianism is
54:27
that has a much better chance than
54:29
saying here is yet another retired
54:31
Republican who has no shot and we all
54:33
know it and he’s going to take one last
54:35
tilt that the old
54:36
before retiring because you know he no
54:38
longer represents what Republicans you
54:41
know currently believe and so he’s gonna
54:43
use our party as a you know a step down
54:45
to retirement and why would that be if
54:48
if you’re saying if you’re surrendering
54:51
that you know we’re gonna be ineffectual
54:52
not be able to make any real change then
54:54
why not go for you know a Hail Mary
54:56
dress not surrendering that you were the
54:59
one surrendering that I am not
55:01
surrendering that that’s why I want to
55:03
run correct qualified credible
55:05
candidates who actually could if they
55:08
were elected do the job when people the
55:10
general public when they beget over the
55:12
hinges somebody is not qualified to do
55:14
the job they’re not going to vote for
55:15
them to do that job this group of
55:18
disaffected 21 year olds who you just
55:20
want to vote because because you’re fun
55:22
or because oh there’s politics as a joke
55:25
that’s not going to ever ever ever win
55:29
an election literally never those people
55:31
are not going to vote anyway they don’t
55:33
vote now they’re not going to vote
55:35
anyway they’re not significant we
55:36
shouldn’t even be concerned about them
55:38
I’m not interested in even trying to
55:40
appeal to those kinds of people you’re
55:42
talking about 46% of vote you of all
55:45
people who are saying that you know
55:46
there’s all this intrusion in the market
55:49
by government that is marginalizing
55:51
people for you know the benefit of a
55:54
twin dling group of privileged people
55:56
are saying that we should completely
55:58
ignore the 40 percent 46 percent of
56:00
eligible voters not to mention a large
56:02
percentage of the the 54 percent who do
56:05
vote who are just voting because they’re
56:06
not even aware that there’s a viable
56:07
alternative that we should just
56:09
completely ignore them in favor of doing
56:11
the strategy that for the last 50 almost
56:14
50 years has not gotten a single
56:16
statewide or federal victory for the
56:19
Libertarian Party which is we’re gonna
56:21
follow Bert arias already has some
56:22
networking strategy that I want every
56:32
other one has done before that how was
56:33
Justin Amash gonna be a massive
56:35
departure from a Gary Johnson in in what
56:38
way is is yet another lizardy Lena
56:40
Republican gonna be an easy one and I
56:42
reject the notion that Gary Johnson was
56:45
a failure he was absolutely blew out of
56:47
the water our approval
56:49
vote totals he was by a immense margin
56:52
there was a successful candidate at
56:53
libertarian history and which is similar
56:56
just at a Bosch can can piggyback on
56:59
that because I love Gary but we all know
57:02
that he was goofy and he didn’t speak
57:04
well and he came across as uninformed
57:07
whether that was true or not
57:09
I think he’s a very smart person but he
57:11
was very very poor at communicating that
57:14
whereas Justin Amash did not he’s
57:15
extremely well-spoken he doesn’t act
57:18
goofy yet nobody could say that he’s
57:20
unqualified unknowledgeable you know
57:24
non-credible he’s extremely well-versed
57:29
intellectual politician whoever they’re
57:34
never gonna hear about him how would a
57:35
Gary John so you just contradicted
57:37
yourself you said that we needed serious
57:39
candidates and the proof of that is Gary
57:41
Johnson who had blew out as you said
57:42
previous vote records but he blew it out
57:45
being as you called him a goofy person
57:47
who didn’t speak well so which is it we
57:49
need we we need a goofy person who
57:51
doesn’t speak oh he was serious and that
57:54
he had elected experience he was a
57:56
two-term governor as was weld and he had
57:59
credible elected experience his
58:02
personality was unfortunately a weakness
58:05
he’s a great person that honestly that
58:07
he is such a great person as part of why
58:09
he was not more successful because you
58:11
have to be kind of a jerk to succeed in
58:14
politics but it’s you can’t say you
58:17
can’t have that both way because it
58:18
literally is both ways he was a serious
58:21
candidate in that he had elected
58:23
experience but he was not as serious as
58:25
he could have been because he isn’t a
58:26
good speaker and acts like a goofball he
58:28
is he got elected as a pothead e.type
58:34
goofball so I mean that that’s sort of I
58:37
mean we can do this all day long and I’m
58:39
okay with agreeing to disagree with you
58:40
but I lovingly encourage you Sam to
58:43
examine some of your precepts here in
58:45
terms of what is considered respectable
58:47
I don’t think respectable is this you
58:50
know a eight 20th century formal
58:53
business aesthetic combined with a a
58:56
sober August anchormen stone if it was
59:00
then we wouldn’t have a bright orange
59:02
president who
59:03
you said a little growl and gold plates
59:05
everyone okay let’s let’s address that
59:07
but if you are in one of the two major
59:10
parties you can afford to deviate from
59:13
that kind of norm you can you know AOC
59:16
is nothing like that she’s very loud and
59:18
outspoken and post memes on the internet
59:21
and she has all this grassroots support
59:22
and she you know class back get people
59:25
on Twitter all the time and she could do
59:26
that or Trump eat it I don’t need to
59:29
even say anything about Trump they are
59:31
both in the two major parties they
59:33
already have a base of 40 million
59:35
supporters most of whom are going to
59:38
vote for literally anybody of their
59:40
party who is on the ballot we do not
59:42
have that luxury the only way that we
59:44
can appeal to people is by showing them
59:47
that we are actually a credible third
59:48
option and so that’s the literally the
59:51
most important possible thing that we
59:54
can do is show that we are a valid
59:57
credible qualified legitimate third
60:00
option that is the absolute most
60:03
important thing that the party could
60:05
possibly do is portray us as a valid
60:08
credible option and that means a comical
60:12
level of seriousness and credibility and
60:17
well-spoken as’ and it’s not like when a
60:21
republican it does something you know
60:24
funny and silly that’s like oh that’s
60:26
fun because that’s not what you expect
60:28
from them but that is what people expect
60:30
from us and it’s not it’s not fun to see
60:32
people that you think are goofy idiots
60:34
acting like goofy idiots it’s fun to see
60:37
people who are normally well-spoken and
60:39
serious and you know all put together at
60:42
everything it’s fun to see those people
60:44
act like goofy idiots when it’s just the
60:47
goofy idiot party at nobody is impressed
60:49
by us acting like goofy idiots no one’s
60:51
impressed by us at all because they
60:53
don’t know we exist I I will I will
60:57
leave you with that and I will also say
61:00
that I think when when 3.25% is our
61:04
blowout
61:05
I think after 50 years at this point the
61:08
Republicans as a as a previous third
61:10
party was already a dominant party and I
61:12
think we can we can possibly maybe
61:14
deviate from the script I will
61:16
excu this as your last question when
61:18
vermin and I do get the nomination what
61:20
are you going to name your pony not even
61:25
gonna answer that but once again it you
61:27
say deviate from the script we have
61:29
never run the script that I want to run
61:32
you keep acting like I want a
61:33
continuation of the status quo of the
61:35
Libertarian Party literally it never
61:37
before somewhat 2012 and 2016 have they
61:42
done anything like what I would want us
61:44
to do what okay we’re gonna do something
61:48
radically different that Sam wants which
61:50
is to find a retired Republican who
61:52
can’t win their seat back because they
61:54
went against the Republican orthodoxy
61:57
we’re gonna name your pony kipper
62:01
because when people don’t name their
62:02
pony we give them names that they
62:04
otherwise wouldn’t want so guys thanks
62:07
again for tuning in for this episode of
62:08
the mortgage interest deduction jam we
62:11
are sorry that it didn’t actually happen
62:13
and we hope that next time we’re gonna
62:15
we’re gonna get TJ a new iPad or
62:18
something to try to get it to work right
62:19
um
62:21
so Sam I’m gonna give you one last
62:23
chance to say you’re gonna vote for me
62:27
no I’m gonna give you one last chance to
62:28
give whatever final thoughts you have on
62:30
whatever you want to talk about plug
62:32
whatever you want for your show and then
62:34
we are going to we’re going to sign out
62:36
Sam I give you the floor by merch
62:41
mortgage interest deduction is bad we
62:44
need to run credible candidates that’s
62:46
the the gist of what’s happened here
62:50
agree possibly wrong Sam thanks again
62:54
for tuning in you’re always an absolute
62:55
pleasure to have on stick around I’m
62:57
going to talk with you during the intro
62:58
guys thanks again for tuning in for this
63:00
absolutely blessed mess of an episode
63:04
actually it went well it was really the
63:07
only problem was that TJ’s things
63:09
stopped working
63:10
but yeah thanks for tuning in tonight
63:13
and now it’s up to you again to decide
63:15
who won this mortgage interest deduction
63:17
jam was it how’s he the house was it Sam
63:22
Coppinger who was the only one who spoke
63:24
or was it TJ who liked house II just
63:28
watched so guys
63:30
again for be sure to comment with who
63:32
you thought one and we will release the
63:34
winner tomorrow night also be sure to
63:37
tune in next week Tuesday night at 8:00
63:39
Eastern for the muddied waters of
63:41
freedom where Matt Wright and I will
63:44
parse through the week’s events with the
63:47
cheer and a plum of the sweet winter
63:50
wonder boys that we are also next week I
63:53
will not be having an episode of my
63:54
fellow Americans I will be getting ready
63:55
for my new hampshire primary tour with
63:58
the vermin spike 2020 campaign and we
64:01
will be going live multiple times the
64:03
following week during the New Hampshire
64:04
primary as we will be trolling the
64:06
entire process on our way to becoming
64:08
Sam’s pick for president and vice
64:11
president of these United States Sam by
64:15
saying nothing has acknowledged this
64:16
guys thanks again for tuning in we will
64:19
see you next week and god bless you
64:23
[Music]