CreateDebate


Socratic4's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Socratic4's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Nomenclature, should I be allowed to plant a fruit tree in my backyard?

1 point

Should I be allowed to plant a fruit tree in my backward?

1 point

A) I wrote general universal preferences, not unanimous universal preferences. Meaning I'm referring to what most people generally want, not what everyone wants.

B) I don't believe you're an elected representative of the modern left and in fact, Cultural Relativism as I described it, is promoted by the modern left as I'm a sociology student and what I wrote is exactly what I was taught.

D) My argument is against the acceptance of every cultural behavior, and in no way did you refute my argument. Do you believe we should accept every cultural behavior?

Did you notice that virtually all your counter arguments are premised on ignoring the actual content of the original argument and focusing on subtleties?

1 point

I'm not arguing that we should artificially diversify every community's genome as that would be contradictory to my argument. I'm arguing against artificially conforming a communities genome.

1 point

FDR's was a bad US president, his reinforcement of monopolies devoided the market of competition, that coupled with government sanctioned wages led to mass unemployment and extreme price hikes. All in all he is estimated to have prolonged the great depression by about 3 years.

1 point

Excluding the fact that high marginal tax rate effects only the top percent of income earners, Eisenhower's goal was to pay off the national debt, there was no government organized health insurance or housing under his terms as president and he has stated publicly that the governments goal should be to keep taxes as low as possible.

1 point

I'm arguing that the taxation that is currently required in order to fund all the social benefits the government provides is stagnating the economy to the extent that we would be better off without it. What is your counter argument?

1 point

If you're emotionally incapable of acknowledging you were wrong about something I'm ok with that, we can pretend as if you won the argument. Just don't pretend as if you managed to justify social democracy.

1 point

Do you have a source? because my findings are different.

Oh, and no, there isn't a 'too high'...and a 'too low', but I'll leave you to figure that out.

1 point

There is no "too high" the higher the tax rate the more stagnated the economy is.

If the article was regarding a substitute for the current medicare program a saving of $592 billion annually wouldn't be possible because the total amount of money that is currently spent on medicare in the US is only bout $590 billion. This article is obviously discussing ways to bring down the cost of the bill I mentioned.

1 point

We aren't even close to what?

The bill that is discussed in the article in the second link you sent me is Bernie Sander's "Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act" which currently hasn't passed congress, this medicare program is speculated to cost 1.4 trillion USD Annually. When the author discusses half a trillion dollars in savings he's speculating that the cost of this medicare program (that hasn't been enacted yet) could be reduced by said amount of money. I hope you understand that an increase of a trillion dollars in annual government spending isn't viable.

You linked me a 44 page PDF, I'm not going to read it. You can paste the parts where it states how free education isn't going to increase the national debt and nullify the economic stagnation funding it will cause, if you want.

1 point

Go on and expound on both. High tax rates cause economic stagnation, this is a fact.

1 point

If we increase the corporate tax rate the corporation will move to countries with lower corporate tax rate and we'd lose both the corporations to tax and the employment they bring.

1 point

A) The government isn't making enough tax revenue to substantiate all the existing and speculative social benefits you want, which leads it to take loans that it obviously can't cover, which will lead to a recession which will degrade our living standards into oblivion.

B) The economic stagnation that is caused by the extensive taxation that the government partakes in order to cover the existing social benefits is degrading our living standards to the extent that we would be better off without said social benefits and by extension taxation as we would be free to spend our money.

-1 points

never mind this, i don't know how to delete a reply.....................

1 point

Oh god the irony, nowhere have I stated that socialism or communism necessitates expanding the state, effectively making your argument a straw man. Other than that, as you seem to advocate communism, here is my argument against it:

As far as I understand communism is a societal state in which each member of society contributes the entirety of their labor to a common inventory which each member of society has equal access to. If that is the case can I take more than I contribute to the common inventory? If true that means someone else is left with less than he contributed in which case why would that person want to be part of a communist society? Can I only take as much as I contribute? if that is the case why be part of a communist society in the first place?

1 point

Do I seriously need to explain why high tax rates stagnate the economy? please educate yourself.

Oh and here's the definition of a straw man so you stop randomly accusing me of using one.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

1 point

First of all it should go into paying off the national debt obviously, and after that it shouldn't exist, taxation should be reduced and kept to a minimum, so does government spending.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that:

A) The government isn't making enough tax revenue to substantiate all the existing and speculative social benefits you want, which leads it to take loans that it obviously can't cover, which will lead to a recession which will degrade our living standards into oblivion.

B) The economic stagnation that is caused by the extensive taxation that the government partakes in order to cover the existing social benefits is degrading our living standards to the extent that we would be better off without said social benefits and be extension taxation as we would be free to spend our money.

If we increase the corporate tax rate the corporation will move to countries with lower corporate tax rate and we'd lose both the corporations to tax and the employment they bring.

2 points

The taxation that is required in order to fund your failing safety net is stagnating the economy to the extent that people would be better off (living standards wise) without it. Not to mention that Your government doesn't even make enough tax revenue to pay for it, it relies on loans that it obviously can't pay, which will eventually lead to a recession. Oh, and Prove that people would've died without your safety net.

1 point

And to think you told me I'm ignorant of the reality of modern western economic systems. Countries rack up national debt in the way of the government spending more money than it collects by taxation, and on what does the government spend the most? welfare and social programs. Other than that you're operating on the assumption that living standards will decrease as a result of the government ceasing it's social programs, which isn't the case.

1 point

Yes indeed, each and every modern western society is, in fact, your blend of socialism and capitalism, and almost each and every modern western society is racking up national debt at an exponential rate, which is inevitably going to lead to a global recession.

2 points

Excluding the fact that you choose whether or not to invest in an insurance while in communism someone forcefully takes your stuff and puts it in the kitty, What determines whether you need something or not?

2 points

The argument you present here shows a level of ignorance of the reality of modern western economic systems that it's hard to know where to start.

Capitalism with very few regulation and laws that prevent cronyism is what works best. It fails hard when people give the government power over the market which Inevitably leads to corporations using the government as a pawn to tighten their grip over the market. - that's precisely the opposite of what really works, and it's what we're seeing right now.

See? I can do this too, so do you want to continue spewing your beliefs without backing them in any way shape or from? because it amounts to nothing.


1 of 3 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]