CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Everyone can say they want the same benefits for less money, less debt, etc. Only when someone tells you what they would actually stop spending money on should you give them any credence.
Is it your opinion that we can continue spending our debt higher and higher? When do we have to stop. Twenty trillion, thirty trillion? If we ignore our debt, what do you think will be the eventual result.
I think the market will tell us when we have too much debt by raising interest rates (which are currently extremely low.)
Additionally, I think that tax and spend is better for the deficit/debt than tax cut and spend. If there is any time for deficit spending, it is when interest rates are low, unemployment too high, infrastructure investment needed, and to stimulate an economy in a free fall spiral.
At the beginning of the Bush administration they used the expected surplus to advocate for cutting taxes to give back money to the people (rather than paying down the debt), later they used deficits to advocate for more tax cuts. No matter what the current conditions are, or the impact on the deficits/debt, their policy is the same - more tax cuts/less government revenue ref. Since they offer nothing in terms of actual policies to reduce spending by a corresponding amount - they will inevitably increase the debt.
Meanwhile, Clinton raised taxes, and rather than destroy the economy, we had a thriving economy in the 90s and yearly budget surpluses.
Obama raised taxes on the top bracket back to Clinton levels and, again, rather than destroy the economy, unemployment continues to decline, GDP is growing, and the deficit for 2014 was down two-thirds from the day he took office and below the level of not just 2008, but lower than the 2003 or 2004 budget deficits when adjusted for inflation or as a % of GDP.
I think the market will tell us when we have too much debt by raising interest rates (which are currently extremely low.)
But the interest rates are set by the Federal Reserve Bank. The same people who have given us trillions in QE, flooding our economy with additional fiat money. The market is reacting to these low interest rates and flood of cash produced from printing money. Its all pretend wealth.
Additionally, I think that tax and spend is better for the deficit/debt than tax cut and spend.
I agree. But should we not start to spend without deficit? How can we pay our creditors unless we have more cash than expenses?
interest rates are set by the Federal Reserve Bank
Long term treasury rates are also very low - people who buy them (including foreign countries) set the rate at auction. ref (bit of a spoiler for the response I still owe you, but the same assertion deserves the same response I suppose.)
I agree.
Then we'll both be voting mostly for Democrats for the foreseeable future I presume... :)
But should we not start to spend without deficit?
Under Bush deficits skyrocketed to 1.2 Trillion. Under Obama the deficit has fallen to below the 2003 level (as a percentage of GDP or when adjusted for inflation.) And even much of that is due to spending on Iraq and Afghanistan and decreased revenue from tax cuts and the recession.
I'm not to informed to engage political discourse, but I'm always called a republican because im a capitalist... Meaning, I think every situation causes for profitable gain, so my policy is to do only what makes lots of money.
I also believe that it is unconstitutional to take more money from the rich all because they worked harder for their money than the 99%. (Note: I am not saying the 99% doesn't work hard, they just don't work/think hard for aquiring assets that generates profit. Ask a poor person how many bonds/stocks/assets they own... Or if they know the metrics of bonds... Now ask a capitalist...
For the record note my preamble, secondly I will again clarify that I don't know if 'capitalist' commonly equated with 'republican'- towards me, however, it is.
I would suggest that those labeling your politics are somewhat ignorant. For all that some will decry our economy as being increasingly socialist we are considerably more capitalist than other nations, and more importantly there are capitalists in both parties (i.e. being a capitalist is not an especially partisan attribute).
Your notion that the extraordinarily wealthy worked harder than everyone else is somewhat laughable in my estimation. A not insignificant number inherited their wealth, their work positions that allowed them to accrue their wealth, and the knowledge base (e.g. stocks, bond metrics, etc.) that empowered their success. For those who secured their own wealth, hard work was certainly an element but the results may simply be the product of luck or more aptly directed effort rather than a greater amount of effort itself.
Why does everyone call self-made millionares lucky? It's a direct insult and a remark that disregards the 23 1/2 hours a day they spent empowering themselves.
I don't know if you're hinting that ordinary people cannot acquire assets and learn stock/bond metrics.. Poor people spend money on "stuff" the people in process of becoming wealthy spend money on things that make money. Though I understand poor people have bills to pay, they choose not to properly manage their money so they can invest in an asset(frankly, I don't even think the thought comes to mind). But that's a good thing they think like that, to not be apart of the majority (I.e. The 99%) is somewhat fulfilling (as in it wouldn't be to fun if everyone was rich..).
Because being a self-made millionare isn't attainable through hard work alone, without a little bit of luck.
Sure, there is much that one can do to increase their odds, but ultimately there are factors involved that are unpredictable.
Those who attain wealth and claim that it is entirely due to hard work and effort, and had no luck involved whatsoever, are incorrect. While many factors can be controlled directly or indirectly, and others can be compensated for, it is fundamentally impossible to control all of the factors involved in the process. You can do everything right, and still lose if the wrong deal goes sour, an anticipated company buyout falls through at the last minute, a company tanks completely, etc.
Those who claim that those who attain wealth due so entirely due to luck are similarly misguided. There are those who attain a certain measure of wealth due to luck alone, but it is extremely rare that such wealth is held onto for any period of time.
Luck is always a factor. The self-made and 'old money' wealthy downplay its impact. Those who are jealous of wealth overstate its impact. Both are wrong.
Note that I'm not asserting that there is a force of some kind called luck that influences the outcome of things. Luck, as I understand it, is a hindsight observation of situations where the party asserted to be lucky or unlucky did not have total control over the scenario; The right bets in a game of craps, for example, lower the house advantage to zero or near zero- the expected outcome is very close to 50-50, so the likeliest outcome is breaking even- but most of the time, either the house or the better comes out ahead despite this. A better outcome than probability predicts is referred to as 'good luck' and a worse outcome than probability predicts is referred to as 'bad luck.'
A self-made millionaire has typically taken actions that have maximized his potential gains and minimized his potential risks, but the idea that he has total control over everything that can effect his finances is ludicrous.
I concede to everything you just said so I will just put it as so: the poor doesnt do as much as the self-made to put themselves in positions that offers wealth. Like learning the metrics of stocks/bonds, or real estate investments, etc.
I hope you wasn't saying your luck scenario is analogous to self-made Rich people who are smart investors etc..? People learn to properly invest to become rich; I suppose you can learn how to roll dice to potentially land on the right numbers (though a bit fantastical don't you think?).
My analogy regarding the best in craps was meant to be comparable to investment strategies at a theoretical level, not necessarily a practical level.
A craps player doesn't learn techniques to make the dice come up the way he or she wants; craps dice must be thrown across the table and bounce off the far wall to count, subjecting it to numerous varying conditions. My analogy is not towards casting the dice in a particular way, but rather knowing the odds of a given craps bet, as well as the payouts for winning. As such, a savvy gambler can effectively maximize his odds, but is limited by the fact that significant thought has been put into gambling rules that ensure probability overall is advantageous to the house; it is extremely rare to see any form of chance-based gambling where the house is disadvantaged, even slightly.
Good investment strategies maximize the potential for reward and minimize the risk involved, but there is always a measure of risk, and it is not possible to control and compensate for all of the factors affecting investments. It helps that there isn't a built in 'house advantage' for investment, but it's still impacted by numerous factors beyond the ability of most to control.
When an individuals portfolio is sufficiently large and diversified, the risk is significantly mitigated, as losses in one area aren't destroying the entire portfolio, and can potentially be counterbalanced by gains in another area. Eventually, the likelihood for total loss is nearly zero, but it's never completely zero.
But reaching that near-zero likelihood requires, as I've noted, a sufficiently large and diversified portfolio. If you aren't beginning with a significant amount of capital, there is significant risk starting out. So a successful investor has either been lucky to inherit assets to invest (directly or indirectly) or has been lucky to successfully get through that high-risk starting period.
A savvy investor can, to a limited extent, predict how the market will go- but again, cannot take into account all of the factors involved; even illegal insider trading, while hugely advantaged, cannot account for everything.
Like I said- my point isn't that the wealthy are only there due to luck, and it isn't that the wealthy are there only due to effort. My point is that both come into play for an investment strategy. Investment strategies are all about tipping risk vs. reward in ones favor, but risk cannot be eliminated entirely.
How many previously wealthy individuals have been ruined by an unforeseen market crash of some kind, or an anticipated buyout that fell through? Were they ruined because the investment strategies that made them wealthy were suddenly no longer applicable? Or were they ruined because a low-probability event happened, and they were just unlucky?
Even if you count cards, it's still possible to bust.
Why does everyone call self-made millionares lucky? It's a direct insult and a remark that disregards the 23 1/2 hours a day they spent empowering themselves.
I cannot speak for those who do, and I did not advance anything remotely so simplistic as that. My point was that not all millionaires are self-made, and that those who are do not owe their success solely to effort (though it certainly factors).
I don't know if you're hinting that ordinary people cannot acquire assets and learn stock/bond metrics.. Poor people spend money on "stuff" the people in process of becoming wealthy spend money on things that make money. Though I understand poor people have bills to pay, they choose not to properly manage their money so they can invest in an asset(frankly, I don't even think the thought comes to mind). But that's a good thing they think like that, to not be apart of the majority (I.e. The 99%) is somewhat fulfilling (as in it wouldn't be to fun if everyone was rich..).
My point was that growing up in a higher income household makes wealth acquisition easier than growing up in a lower income or even median income household. Not only does one have more starter capital, but they benefit from a pre-existing network as well as strong financial role models that their lower income counterparts are considerably less likely to have. This does not mean that someone starting out in a lower income situation cannot learn how to invest and grow their wealth, but it does mean that there is more to wealth accumulation than just effort. I would also suggest that your are speaking less to effort and more to the efficiency of its application (i.e. a lower income person may work as many if not more hours than their wealthy counterpart but remain lower income).
On the record, since it has been lightly broached, I do not support equal wealth distribution at all. I do consider the growing disparity and concentration of wealth to be concerning, however.
Given the considerable number of Americans who do not vote in elections, our elected officials arguably are not the most representative of our population at large. Generally speaking, I think the two-party system is a significant cause of many of our political issues as well as our low voter turnouts. Every issue becomes polarized when there are only two parties, and those polarized views tend to cater towards the extremes leaving many Americans without an option that actually represents their views.
I would also lend credence to the notion that many Americans are quite moronic, though I would extend that rather equitably to humanity in general.
It's not quite as bad as all that. An affect of the specific set of freedoms and legal precedents associated with those freedoms, as well as the extent of our social programs is that less intelligent Americans effectively have a louder voice than their compatriots in most other nations have. This means that a larger proportion of our idiots are spewing their idiocy. Combine this with the fact that our population dwarfs that of all other English speaking countries, and you end up with the result that the vast majority of stupid things said in English on the internet were said by Americans, simply as a quirk of statistics. Don't forget that many stupid things are said in English by non-native English speakers, and these are almost entirely attributed to poor mastery of English rather than poor intelligence, further exacerbating the perception.
As you can see, We don't need a higher rate of stupidity to achieve the effect you're observing.
I might have been a bit hasty to dismiss you all as morons but the fact is in your two-party state both sides seem to scream stupidity to me. You have disgusting, barbaric, homophobic Christian pigs on one side and lefties on another. If I were an American I would feel a bit like I would have to choose between Hitler and Stalin.
Interesting. If your theory is correct, you would expect the majority of intelligent things said in English would also come from Americans. I have no idea if this is the case.
That one is a bit more nebulous. English is in many cases used as a de facto standard for international communications, and as such the more intelligent indidivuals even in nations that don't primarily speak English are likely to have a solid mastery of English as well, and are likely to publish papers in English.
We do put out a considerable amount of material within the scientific community, more than most (possibly all; limited data) nations in raw number even if not per capita (the UK, for example, beats the US in papers published per capita while still only putting out about 1/4 of the raw material, the difference being the 5:1 population ratio in the US' favor.)
