The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 367 - Only 100 Billion Dollars Away From Utopia

Episode Date: November 8, 2019

Bernie Sanders suggests taking 100 billion dollars from Bill Gates and using it to end homelessness and provide safe drinking water to everyone. But if 100 billion dollars can do that, why hasn’t it already happened? The government already brings in 4 trillion dollars a year. Also, Boomers complain that they’re being made fun of too much. And Elizabeth Warren says non-binary people are the backbone of our democracy. Date: 11-08-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Michael Bloomberg is jumping into the race. This is huge news. This is very significant. It's really great, I think. The great thing about Bloomberg is that he's an old white billionaire nanny state gun grabber. So amazingly, he checks nobody's boxes. He manages to be the exact opposite of what almost everybody wants. He manages to be precisely the thing that. Everybody on all sides is not looking for it. And he's like, you know those games of the carnival where they say everybody wins? And so you just have to throw a ping pong ball at like a, in the direction of 600 fish balls that are all stacked next to each other. And of course, whatever prize you win, you spend $2 on a ball, whatever prize you win is worth a lot less than $2. But anyway, Michael Bloomberg throws his ping pong ball. at the fish bowls, and the ball manages to bounce off of the rim of every fishbowl and then landed a pond 50 yards away. It's kind of amazing. It's almost impressive. It's almost impressive that somebody could manage to have no constituency at all. And that's what Bloomberg pulls off. So it's great to have him in the race. I'm pretty impressed by that. Speaking of billionaires, there's been a discussion recently about how much money Bill Gates should be allowed to have of his own. speaking at a conference a few days ago, Gates said that he pays a lot in taxes. He says he's paid over

$10 billion in taxes. He says that's more than anybody else in the country, which I would believe. And he's fine with paying even more than that. He says, but he doesn't like the tax plans put forward by people like Elizabeth Warren because he feels that she would want to confiscate way more than is reasonable. So his exact words were, I've paid over $10 billion in taxes. I paid more than anyone in taxes. If I had to pay $20 billion, it's fine. But when you say I should pay $100 billion, then I'm starting to do a little bit of math over what I would have left over. Now, it seems reasonable to me, right?

The guy doesn't want to pay $100 billion in taxes. Pays $10 billion. He says, fine. He says you'd do $20 billion. Honestly, that'd be more generous than I would be. I don't think I'd be willing to pay $20 billion, even if I had $100 billion. But he says he doesn't want to pay $100 billion.

Warren responded by saying that she wouldn't take $100 billion, very generous of her, although she doesn't say how much she would take. It'd be more than $10. She says not $100. Very nice of her. But Bernie Sanders, of course, sensed an opportunity.

And he jumped in to, he sets an opportunity to out socialist Elizabeth Warren. and to out-class warfare, Elizabeth Warren. And he sent a tweet last night saying, this was Bernie Sanders. Say Bill Gates was actually taxed $100 billion. We could end homelessness and provide safe drinking water to everyone in this country. Bill would still be a multi-billionaire.

Our message? The billionaire class cannot have it all when so many have so little. Okay, a few problems here. And I say all of this as someone who is not a Bill Gates fan. I'm not waving pom-poms for Bill Gates. If I were to list 100 people in the country who I most admire, Bill Gates probably won't make the list. But I also don't think that I have a right to his money. As much as I would like it.

And just like anyone else, as jealous as I am, that other people get to be billionaires. and I don't. I mean, I would love to be a billionaire. I'm not. And I know we're all very jealous about that. But even if that's the case, I don't have a right to his money. So here's the problem with Bernie's approach. Aside from just how massively stupid it is in general, Sanders says that we could end homelessness with $100 billion. Now, think about that. Because this is really the mentality of a child. Well, we'll just give them all money. and the problem will be solved. How do you get rid of homelessness? Just give them all money. Easy enough. No, the majority of homeless people are homeless, either because of drugs or mental illness or often both.

That is the thing that, maybe not in every case, but in most cases, if somebody's living on the street, it's going to have a lot to do with one of those factors or both. Now, if you can't solve that problem, addiction and mental illness by throwing money at it, which you can't, then if someone's addicted to heroin, you can't just, maybe Bernie Sanders doesn't understand this, but if someone's addicted to heroin and they're living on the street and you walk up and say, here's $10,000. Stop being addicted to heroin. But you, that's, not only is that not going to work, but you probably have just killed that person by doing that. So if you can't solve the problems of addiction and mental illness by throwing money at it, that means you can't solve homelessness by throwing money at it.

This is, it's talking about solving homelessness with $100 billion. It's like saying that you could solve anorexia and eating disorders by just, making sure that everyone has enough food to eat. It just, it completely misses the point entirely. You're, you're not understanding what the problem is. And your solution actually would make the problem a whole lot worse. Also, second point here, if $100 billion could end homelessness and give everyone safe drinking water, think about that. No more homelessness. Everyone has safe drinking water with $100 billion.

Now, in theory, I think it's a great idea. If it was possible for the government to end homelessness, quote unquote, and make sure that everyone has safe water to drink with $100 billion, I would say, yes, they should do that. But here's the point. That doesn't mean they need to go and take $100 billion from Bill Gates. because if they could do that with $100 billion, then they should have already done it without Bill Gates's money. The government brings in $4 trillion a year, $4 trillion with a T.

That's almost 40 times Bill Gates' net worth that they bring every year. So if $100 billion could have those utopian results, then shouldn't we be living in Utopia right now, considering the $4 trillion they have at their disposal? Shouldn't we be living in a literal Garden of Eden at this point? Now, you could try to say, well, yeah, they bring in all that money, but it's spent elsewhere. There are other things we need to spend it on,

and that's why we need the extra $100 billion so we can go and solve homelessness. Okay, so you're telling me, there's $4 trillion worth of stuff for the government to spend money on, and all of it is more important than ending homelessness and making sure people have saved water to drink? You're telling me that it's possible to do both of those things, end homelessness, make sure everybody has saved drinking water,

with one-fortieth of the government's revenue, but they just decide to allocate the money elsewhere. Anyway, well, isn't that a problem? Isn't it then a problem of allocation of resources, not a problem of a lack of resources to get the job done? Either that, or it's a problem of the government just not functionally having the ability to solve those problems by dumping money on it. So either way, taking another 100 bill from bill isn't going to matter. But this is just a general point. Every time someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren starts talking about all of the wonderful things they could do, if only they had an extra $50 billion, $100 billion a year, whatever, or not even a year.

I mean, if they're talking about, if you confiscate $100 billion from, you're not going to get $100 billion from Bill Gates every year. That's just a one-time deal because you've taken almost all of his money and so now you have it. So anytime you hear one of these people say, okay, if we just had this amount of money, we could do all these amazing things. Well, just keep in mind that they already have $4 trillion a year to throw around. And so if it were possible to do those things they're talking about,

they would have already done it. And besides all that, the bigger point is this, and this maybe is the most important point with Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren. Who are you to decide? what people should and shouldn't have. Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders, his exact words,

our message, the billionaire class cannot have it all when so many have so little. Okay. But who are you, Bernie, to decide what the billionaire class can have? Why should you get to make that decision? That's the question that never gets answered

by these people. I mean, they can stand up there and talk all they want about how evil and greedy the billionaires are. Maybe they are evil and greedy. I don't know. It doesn't matter. The point is, who, if you're saying, oh, nobody needs that much money. Okay, well, how much money do they need? What's the cutoff?

You've decided that once you get to X amount of money, that's too much. you don't need that much. Well, what is the cutoff? What is the X amount of money? And how did you decide that? And who empowered you to be the one to decide that? But it all seems very arbitrary to me. And why should you be the one to decide that?

Okay. Back to Warren for a moment here. So sorry about that. We have to go back to Elizabeth Warren. but Warren secured a big endorsement yesterday. I want to acknowledge it. I think it'd only be fair to do that. She was endorsed by the organization Black Women 4.

That's 4-F-O-R and women spelled with an X. Women, so W-O-M-X-N, which would really be pronounced, I guess, Wim-E-M-I-X-N. So she was endorsed by the organization Black-W-M-E-M-X-Four. and they came out and endorsed her for president, and Warren responded by saying, thank you, Black women for, black, this is what she says,

black trans and cis women, gender non-conforming and non-binary people are the backbone of our democracy, and I don't take this endorsement lightly. I'm committed to fighting alongside you for the big structural change our country needs. The backbone of our democracy. non-binary people are the backbone of our democracy.

First of all, that's a lot of work for 14 people to do. To make them the backbone, that's your, you know, that's having them hold up democracy like that. That's, that's, that's a lot of weight you're putting on just 14 people's shoulders. But by the way, why are black women getting lumped in with non-binary and gender non-conforming people? Now this particular organization, that's what they do. So that's why Elizabeth Warren brought it up. But the question still stands. How are those groups even related?

And isn't it kind of insulting to equate their identity with some passing fad like gender non-conforming? And it wouldn't be like if someone said, I appreciate the support of American Catholics and Star Trek fans. What? What are those two have to do with each other? I mean, it's possible that someone could be a Star Trek fan and a Catholic. I'm Catholic, and I kind of like, certainly Star Trek is better than Star Wars at the very least, which isn't hard to do. But do you really think those two identities are on the same level, are just as important, carry the same importance as, is that really how you see it? But anyway, here, but this is what the left does, where they take all of these various identities and they lump them all in a pile together and act as though they're all equally as legitimate.

So you have something like black women. Okay. Well, that makes sense. You know, there's an identity that has to do with someone's race, their sex. their actual biological sex. Okay, that makes sense. But then into that same category, you're putting stuff like non-binary,

gender non-conforming. And it's, I think it's insulting and demeaning on top of everything else. But this is just turbocharged pandering here that Warren is doing. And it's the kind of thing. I mean, I always say it,

but it is, the left is beyond paris. at this point. A statement like non-binary people are the backbone of our democracy, that's the kind of thing that I would say sarcastically. That's the kind of thing I would say if I was trying to

satirize the left. But they're becoming increasingly difficult to satirize because in order to do good satire or good parody, whatever you're trying to satirize, you're taking it to a sort of absurd extreme

to try to highlight the flaws with the thing that you're satirizing. But it's becoming difficult to take it to a more absurd extreme than these people will already take it themselves. Okay. So moving on, Jeff Goldblum. They're now trying to cancel Jeff Goldblum. If Goldblum gets canceled, then I truly no one is.

save. A T-Rex couldn't even cancel Jeff Goldblum, but now the woke mob is trying to. Because of something Goldblum said in an interview, this is what he said. And I'm just looking at this now for the first time. So we'll see if this is, if this is, if this is, if this justifies him getting canceled. Jeff Goldblum has said that, and I'm reading now from the independent, Jeff Goldblum has said, he thinks there's a presumption of innocence until proven guilty regarding Woody Allen and the sexual abuse allegations made against him. Alan was accused of child molestation by his daughter Dylan Farrow. He has also always denied any abuse.

Since the allegations came to light, numerous Hollywood figures, including Colin Firth and Greta Gerwig, have pledged never to make a film with Alan again. In the new interview with the I paper, Goldblum has said he would, quote, consider working with the director. in the future, having had a minor role in his 1977 film Annie Hall.

I think there's a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, said Goldblum. I know I enjoyed working with him many years ago and I sat in with his band once too. Okay, that's it. That's what he said. That's all. He said, innocent until proven guilty. And people are upset by this. In fact, the very first sentence,

Jeff Goldblum has said he thinks there's a presumption of innocence. Well, isn't there, though? Now, I happen to think that Woody Allen is a creep, but I don't, I certainly, if Woody Allen came knocking on my door and asking me to appear in one of his films, I would probably have to turn him down, even if that's unlikely to happen. But what exactly is the problem here? I think there's a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Okay. Yes. That is a, that's a, that's an idea that is, that is a, that is a, very much a cornerstone of our system and our democracy, innocent until proven guilty. And it's pretty disturbing now when you have people that are basically in principle coming out against innocent until proven guilty. Where it's now controversial and it can get you canceled to say that,

to say innocent until proven guilty. Those are, these are scary times we live in. All right, before we get to emails, One other thing, if you've been paying attention online, the trend now is this OK Boomer meme. I don't know if you're not on Twitter. I don't know if this is bled outside of Twitter or not or if it's just a Twitter thing. But on Twitter, this is the trend now where you say OK Boomer. And anytime someone who's older makes a point that everyone else feels is out of touch, then you just respond with OK Boomer.

well boomers i guess don't like this and so there's been this slate of articles and tweets and things from boomers who are reacting to the okay boomer meme in ways that only show how out of touch they are and just elicit more okay boomers and maybe the worst example of this was a guy a radio host who said a few days ago he tweeted that um he compared the word boomers boomer now to the N-word, saying that it's a slur, basically, to say it. He said, boomer is the N-word of ageism. Being hip and flipped does not make bigotry okay, nor is a derisive epitette acceptable because it's new.

So just the word boomer is now a derisive slur comparable to the N-word. And of course, he tweets this, and then what happens? There's 50 million people responding with, okay, because of course that's going to happen. The only thing I want to say is, it seems like there's finally a real generational warfare ramping up with millennials and Gen Z going after boomers. And I'm kind of enjoying it.

I have to be honest. I think we were due for a good generational war. Well, here's what I'll say. A couple of things. First of all, I don't mean to get into a you started it type of thing. But with the boomers, you did kind of start it because it seems to me that for the last 10 years, it's been perfectly acceptable to insult millennials and to complain about millennials and boomers did that all the time. And I've done it too. There's plenty of things to criticize about us. Don't get me wrong.

But that was a perfectly acceptable thing to do for the last decade. and now just really just recently I think millennials have been starting to throw it back in the direction of boomers and now all of a sudden it's a problem well how dare you lump an entire how dare you criticize an entire generation

and make these generalities like this isn't that what you've been doing with millennials this whole time now it's a problem that's an issue for me also the other thing is when you get into the generational war, the issue that boomers are going to run into is that you can't really, and this is what I've been saying for the last several years,

with boomers criticizing and complaining about millennials, you can't really criticize a millennial as a boomer without criticizing yourself because they're your kids. you're the one who raised these people. And so I think there has been in the boomer generation, and again, we're speaking generally. But in the boomer generation, there has been, I think, in some ways,

a failure to confront their own failures, especially when it comes to parenting. And to acknowledge that, hey, you know, if the millennial generation really is terrible, like we say, that's on us because we're the ones who raise these people. So that's probably our fault. It seems like we may have screwed up big time in the parenting department,

but there's very little acknowledgement of that, which is kind of annoying. Not to mention, of course, boomers bankrupted the country, drove up massive debts, destroyed the institution of marriage and the family, started a bunch of pointless war, so on and so on. There are other things, too. I think there are other things that maybe should be reason to pause and have a little bit of self-reflection

and maybe acknowledge that, hey, you know, we kind of screwed up in a few areas. And we're sort of leaving you a country that's not in great shape. And we're leaving you a lot of problems to fix. And we're sorry about that. That's all. I think maybe if you want to stop the OK Boomer meme, Maybe that's all. Just I think boomers may just need to say that. Listen, we screwed up. You know, we're, we're kind of on our way out and you're taking over the country and it's,

and we're not, you know, we're handing you the keys to the car and it's pretty dinged up and our bad. Sorry about that. Actually, the keys, the car is not dinged up. It is on fire as we speak. We are handing you a car that is on fire. Here are the keys. Sorry about that. Okay, let's go to emails Matt Walshow at gmail.com. Matt Walshow at gmail.com. This is from Stephen says, hey, Matt, this is Stephen. Today on your podcast, you mentioned that the school system is geared mostly towards girls, and you also noted that many boys in our school system are hopped on drugs because they

have too much energy or can't focus. They're put on drugs because of their energy, yeah. I was curious as to how you think the school system could be better. are geared towards both genders. Well, the problem, Stephen, is that in order to gear the school system towards both genders, you would need to rework it from the bottom up. You would need to tear the whole thing down and basically start over. And I don't think, as long as we're going to have this massive education system,

this government-run system, where you've got, you know, millions, of kids in the system and they're going to these schools and they're in classrooms with 35 other kids. As long as we're doing that, there's not going to be any way to gear the system towards each of them individually. You've got 35 kids in a classroom. There's no way to do it. You can't gear. You cannot personalize education when you're doing that. There's no way for the teachers to do it. And it's not the teacher's fault. So one ends up happening is because you've got all these kids in the system and just with the way that it works where you put them in, you got a bunch of kids in a class and they're in this class for 45 minutes

and they go to the next class and on and on and then they leave. And because of that, the system has to streamline. And it's inevitable that the system is going to run on just memorization and regurgitation. And you've got to be able to sit still. and fill out paperwork and remember things and then repeat them on to a sheet of paper. And that's how it's going to work. And that is a lot easier for girls than it is for boys. And that's just a fact. Boys have a lot more physical energy.

They have a harder time paying attention in that kind of environment. They're not as good at memorization as girls are. So my point is, if you're looking for the school system to be able to personalize and gear the educational environment and the educational experience to the personal needs of each kid, that isn't going to happen. But I do think that education needs to be personalized and needs to be geared towards the personal needs of every individual kid, which means that I think the best thing is to not put your kids in that system to begin with. That's why I think homeschooling is great. Or there are not every private school is great, but there are private schools that are much smaller and are able to do that, at least do it much more than the public schools can.

So I think that's the answer. The answer is to withdraw from this system as much. And I know not everybody can, but as much as possible to withdraw from this system and to give our kids an education that is, tailored to their specific needs. This from Caleb says, Hey, Matt, I appreciate your views on relationships and more broadly morality.

I've been a listener since the start of this year and have come to value the wisdom and dry humor you consistently share. I was hoping you could help me with an issue. I've been having 22, and I've been dating this girl for almost a year now. A couple weeks ago, she said she loved me. There was an awkward moment as I couldn't make myself say it back. We talked about it afterwards and came to an understanding. My question is that I don't think I will ever say that to her.

I feel and feel like I mean it. When I think of my future, I don't ever really consider her a part of it. I don't want to hurt her and I feel like a horrible person for letting this happen. What should I do? Thank you for your time. Well, Caleb, first of all, good for you for not saying I love you back if you didn't mean it. I think most people probably would have set it back to be nice thereby leading the either person on and making the situation worse. So I think I would commend you for that. As for what you should do now, I think you probably know what you should do. and in a relationship like this when you're dating, the moment you start asking questions like this, that's probably a good sign that you already know what you should do,

which is to end the relationship. If you've been with this girl for a year, you're 22, you don't love her, you don't see her, you don't see her in your future. That means that there's no reason for this relationship to continue. Dating someone when you know there is no future is point. It's just building up heartache for the future. It's like going on a long road trip,

knowing ahead of time that your car is going to break down on the side of the road before you get to your destination. So the further you go, the worse it's going to be when the car breaks down. So why not, if you know it's going to happen, why not pull over now, take control of the situation? I think this is especially the case when the other person, your girlfriend, in this case, obviously thinks that it is headed somewhere. So she has intentions for your relationship that you don't have. And so I think it's your responsibility to just tell her that, break it off. It'll hurt.

It'll be painful. You'll be kind of miserable for a while. So will she. But it gets better a lot faster. Then you think it will. And then you'll be glad. Before you know what, you'll be glad that you broke it off when you did, both for her sake and for yours.

Okay, let's see. Another relationship one. I guess I'm putting on my Dr. Love hat here. This is from Cam says, Dear Matt, I've been a fan of your work for the last five years. I'm writing because I really value your insight and opinion. I think maybe other people my age could benefit from this question too. I'm 27 and recently started dating a man who checks all of the most important boxes

I've been hoping and praying for. He's a Christian. We align on politics, hobbies, worldview, maturity, humor, communication. He's everything I could want in a husband, and I can imagine building a life together. The only doubt I'm facing is that I don't feel the same excitement and infatuation that I felt in past relationships. Is this a sign that something important is missing from the relationship?

I feel affectionate towards him, and I'm attracted to him, but it's not the head over heels effect. In fact, it's more of the opposite. I feel calm, secure, and happy. And a little nervous at the same time. with a thought of committing to each other forever? Can you have a long, happy, successful marriage with someone if it starts off without figurative fireworks?

What do you think? Also, was there a point in your courtship that you knew you were going to marry your wife? Sincere, thanks for all you do and may God bless you. Well, if you hadn't included that paragraph where you said that you feel calm, secure, and happy, if you hadn't said that, then I would say it's probably not a good sign. because yes relationships are not all about feelings and love is not just a feeling it's a choice it's an act of an act of will it's a choice to sacrifice for another person that's that's what love is but you should still there should still be feelings there and if you just feel nothing for somebody from the very beginning well that's not not not a good foot to to begin on um but you say that you feel calm secure and happy And I would say that that's And you're affectionate,

you feel affectionate towards them and you're attracted to me. And on top of that, you align on politics, hobbies, worldview, maturity, humor, communication. Look, you have to make the decision for yourself. But to me, that sounds like a keeper. And as far as not having that infatuation feeling, well, you talk about a fatuation, that's really sort of the obsession that people have.

And I think the fact that you don't have that is probably just more a sign of you're older. And so if you compare this, and I don't think you said how old you are, you said you're 27. Okay. So if you compare this relationship maybe to when you were 16 and dating someone. Yeah. It's not going to have, it's not going to be the same quote, fireworks that you're talking about. Because when you were 16, being emotionally immature, you were just obsessed with the other person. And of course, it didn't last for very long.

And you had this obsession and then it quickly faded away and the relationship died. And that's how it goes when you're 16 years old. But as you get older, you're not going to be obsessed with the other. Which is good. Because to have it to be married to someone and be obsessed with them and you want to be around them 24-7 and you can't be away from them ever. That would be, you couldn't function that way. It would be a very weird way to have a marriage. And it would get pretty exhausting pretty quick.

So this thing you're talking about of feeling calm, secure. pure, happy. I think that's a sign. It's not a bad sign. And it's not even, it's not a, certainly not a bad sign about this guy. I think that's just a sign of your own maturity. And the fact that you're looking for something deeper and stronger and more solid. And it sounds like you found it.

Okay. Finally, this is from Shane says Matt, not really a question, just a remark on how you said David Fulkenflick and then remarked that it's a dangerous name to say on the air and then proceeded to say his name eight times in a row. I know you really disregarded the left's outrage mob, but wow, that was bold, almost as bold as people who say Epstein did kill himself, which he most definitely did. Your friend, David Fulkenflick. Yeah, well, David Fulkenflick is just, I think, one of the best reporters out there.

And that's what it comes down to. The thing about David Fulkenflick, I'd say that Fulkenflick's best attribute, the main point about Falkinflick that I would make about Fulkenflick is that Fulkenflick he's just falconflick. It's true to himself. You know what I'm saying? There aren't many falconflicks out there. There's falconflick, and then there's not falconflick.

You know what I'm saying? But Fulkenflick is the only fulkin flick. And you got to love Fulkenflick. That's really all. So thank you for giving me the chance to talk about my favorite reporter, David Fulkenflick, again. And thanks everybody for watching. We'll leave it there, I think. Have a great weekend.

And Godspeed. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget. get to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple, podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcast, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Null's show, and the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, supervising producer Mathis Glover, supervising producer Robert Sterling, technical producer Austin

Stevens, editor Donovan Fowler, audio mixer, Mike Coramina. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire Production, Copyright Daily Wire, 2019. If you prefer facts over feelings aren't offended by the brutal truth and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to the Ben Shapiro show. We'll get a whole lot of that and much more. See you there.