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.
I think Goolsbee totally nails it in the video below. The huge tax cuts for the rich are too expensive and would not be very effective at boosting the economy. If this guy had Romer's job from the start I bet Obama's approval numbers would be considerably higher right now.
The huge tax cuts for the rich are too expensive and would not be very effective at boosting the economy.
Why should the rich be punished for clear accomplishments in life?
What a surprise? A government stooge.
Basically, the Obama Administration's perceptive is since you succeeded in life, you are going to be punished for that success and give that money to those who are unproductive.
Plus, the simple fix to the "expensive tax cuts" are to cut federal government spending, including military, reform Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, repeal ObamaCare, and privatize NASA.
Mathematically, its possible to get greater discretionary income and a larger middle class by progressive taxation. The rich are not being punished, the middle class is being allowed breathing room. The middle class is the one that causes society to advance and grow.
If the government were to switch to a flat tax rate and attempt to get the same amount of money from taxes then taxes would increase for the majority of people.
Also having a large middle class spurs industry by possibly creating more demand(more people have a greater discretionary income) and thus more money for the wealthy. The wealthy could theoretically make more money through progressive taxation due to that. The numbers just have to be right.
If the government were to switch to a flat tax rate and attempt to get the same amount of money from taxes then taxes would increase for the majority of people.
I am not advocating a flat tax here nor the tax system.
Changing taxes is a change in government income, not government spending. The government can be made more efficient, transparent and accountable, which would reduce government spending; one of the reason I like the sunlight foundation: http://sunlightfoundation.com/
Most of our economy is based on debt, which means there needs to be a certain amount of cash flow for the economy to not crash, government spending can substitute for a time well consumer spending recovers from some drop(like the one caused by mortgages and cdos). Government spending, even government debt, isn't all ways a bad thing, since it can act as a large scale loan consolidation.
Simply the money-multiplier effect will lead to an unsustainable economy, since it means there is more debt than cash, then throw in the interest rate. If there is ever a lot of debt in one location that gets called due, then that segment of the economy, and (depending on how that segment is connected) the entire economy could suffer and has.
So Basically the American dream goes from doing your best and being rewarded for you best to doing Modestly well and being Rewarded Moderately Well because your success is someone Else Failure so for their Failure you must be punished with more Taxes rather then more chances to Succeed being Given.
First, well labor does creates value, due to private property that isn't why you are "rewarded". However, that is another discussion. Just know there is a disconnection between labor and "reward" and we can go into it more if you want. You suffer from the delusion that the poor don't work as hard as the rich, and that the harder you work the more money you receive. That simply isn't true. Consider a factory line, one worker can work his best, the other his worst without being fired, their production quotas may be dramatically different but they will get paid the same wage. Payment is tied into time spent or another indirect measure of labor which filters an individuals work, not actual labor done.
2nd, money has a decreasing marginal utility, meaning that the more money you acquire, the less of it you need. Furthermore, money tends to accumulate exponentially, the more money you have, the more you get. If I am a millionaire, and I receive 5000 dollars, I was just "rewarded" less than an average working man who received 500 dollars.
It's punishment to tell the wealthy to give a little back to their country? I honestly don't believe democrats are the best tax cutters 100% of the time, but I know for certain that tax money goes somewhere.
Listen carefully- 1:05 "giving these big red eggs to the very high income people would cost 700 billion dollars that we would have to borrow...."
Sir, please explain to me how letting people keep THEIR OWN MONEY is giving them anything??????
WE give OUR money to the US goverment.
Again, keep on explaining it this way and the people will vote against it.
Telling us you are GIVING us our money back just makes our fight that much easier in November.
Also, the least effective way that we can do was shown to us, the last two years.
Last line "We know it doesn't work."
History does not agree with this statement and are we supposed to believe it just because you say so? What about TARP and the stimulus? What happened there?
Most analysts agree, this message will fall flat,we know it doesn't work.
Sir, please explain to me how letting people keep THEIR OWN MONEY is giving them anything??????
Wow, six question marks; you must really want an answer.
Yes, he's spinning a bit, but the fact remains that we have two wars and a number of social programs that need to be paid for and the burden for this payment should be distributed through a progressive tax system. Allowing the rich to avoid paying their fair share is tantamount to giving them handouts.
Regardless, that is largely a semantic issue. The core question here is, "Should the rich be paying higher taxes?" And the answer to that is a resounding yes.
What about TARP and the stimulus?
Things would have been worse without them. We could have had a second Great Depression. Most economists agree that the stimulus should've been larger. China's huge stimulus is the reason their economy is doing better than ours right now.
"Allowing the rich to avoid paying their fair share is tantamount to giving them handouts."
Top 1% of earners in America pay 40% of the federal tax bill,top 10% pay 80%.
You should be thanking them for paying most of your share also.
If 10% of your workplace was doing 80% of all the work, would you punish them and ask them to work more?or ask the other 90% to do their fair share?
If 10% of any team was producing 80% of the scores, would the 10% be asked to produce more or would the other 90% be asked to contribute THEIR fair share?
There is nothing fair about 10% of any group pulling the cart for the other 90% and then being demonized to pay more.
Ask the 47% that pay no federal taxes (after returns) to pay even a small percentage of the bill which would be FAIR.
Sorry, But Fair Share is a subjective Term and is used by the left to say that people who are all ready paying the most in Federal Income Tax needs to be raised and anytime the left doesn't feel your paying enough your tax Burden should go up, not add people to the rolls of those pay Income tax but continually Rasing the Income Tax on people who Already Pay.
As for Defect Spending it didn't work it hasn't helped us to lower Unemployment or any of the things it would help do, always hear from Democrats we needed to spend more, Basically become Greece with debt, Austrity has worked in Germany with Controlled Safety Net Spending yet the German Model is evil and the Greece one is good to the far left.
... he's describing the semantics of the term, not the underlying pros and cons. Do you always argue in 1 dimension because you're not bright enough to understand the underlying complexities? Or is it simply more convenient since your ideas so rarely stand up against any amount of critical thinking?
The fact is, a tax cut for the top 1% will add an additional 700 billion to the national deficit. The fact is cutting taxes for the top 1% has never in practice and cannot in theory help the economy in any significant way. The fact is when the Bush tax cut was put into effect it destroyed Clinton's surplus. And finally, the tax cut was designed to expire by both a Republican Executive branch, and a Republican Legislative Branch after ten years, which has passed.
Continuing this cut is damaging and illogical.
Further, this is not even a left vs right issue.
The right knows damn well the damage continuing this tax cut will cause. They are cynically using those who don't understand taxes and their effect on the economy (yourself) to further their overriding goal of delegitimizing the democratic platform.
Regan raised taxes 3 times. Bush Sr. Raised Taxes. The only reason Bush Jr. did not is because democrats handed him an unprecedented surplus, and because frankly he did not give two craps about the deficit.
Obama and the legislative branch is not even proposing a tax increase, they are simply letting an ill-advised tax cut expire.
If republicans were in power, they would let this cut expire because they know that in 2 years keeping it will lead to further debt and would make them unelectable in 2 years. They are hoping for continued economic failure in order to regain power. That is the only reason they are even making this ridiculous tax cut a debate.
Again just like the cloture debate you have your facts wrong with your usual touch of elitist twang ("Do you always argue in 1 dimension because you're not bright enough to understand the underlying complexities? Or is it simply more convenient since your ideas so rarely stand up against any amount of critical thinking?")
The fact is over 700 billion in spending has not created anywhere near the jobs this administration said it would,in fact other than goverment jobs being created, little has been done.
Another fact, Democrats everywhere and on this site are saying we should have spent MORE, so even if the tax cuts cost more (I say they don't), more private sector jobs have always and will always be created by tax cuts for those who create jobs and all of a sudden Dems don't want to spend on a tax cut but state that we should spend more to stimulate.Which is it???
And here is where you again fall short on your understanding of procedures in goverment, "And finally, the tax cut was designed to expire by both a Republican Executive branch, and a Republican Legislative Branch after ten years, which has passed". It was not designed to expire, Republicans wanted these tax cuts to last forever. The biased CBO prevented this by not finding the tax cuts to be revenue neutral. You really need to study up on your procedures in Congress.
Many other Presidents have raised taxes, just not the highest tax increase in history in an economical crisis during a recession.
"Obama and the legislative branch is not even proposing a tax increase, they are simply letting an ill-advised tax cut expire." Spin it however you want, even liberal news agencies know a tax increase when they see it.
1. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and deny what every expert said would happen had the bailout not been passed. The fact is, we got out of the great depression with government spending. We avoided this one with government spending. Every expert right and left were for the bailouts. Now they see that a complex necessary thing is a lot easier to ridicule than explain. However, if the right were in power now, they would be singing the praises of this bi-partisan bailout, not demonizing the left for it.
2. Elitist? I grew up in trailer parks and tents. I am pro-people. Every theory and ideaology and philosophy I've ever espoused has been with the under lying idea of ensuring the many have and maintain power within a democratic society. Every idea, theory, and philosophy you've mentioned comes directly from talking points disseminated by the likes of Koch brothers with the overriding goal of ensuring those with power keep it and accumulate more - wrapped in a flag of course. And your arguments are always simple, and appeal to a lowest common denomonator. Well, this is the largest economy in the world, we have every philosophy, religion, race, and custom living relatively peacefully within our borders. It is not a simple thing, and it would benefit you to learn more about it, or if not, don't bother debating it.
I am the elitist? Why, because I read and write at a college level? Because I expect those debating on a debate site to have some knowledge of what they are debating?
Do you ever ask why the right has such disdain for knowledge and education? Is it maybe because they don't want you to figure out what a scam they are running on you?
3. The taxes proposed by the left keep the current tax rate for all but the top 1% of earners. That means anyone making less than $250,000 a year will stay at the exact same tax rate. Everyone who makes more than 250 thousand a year will have a tax hike between 1 and 2 percent. And the 2 percent only for those making over 1 million dollars a year. And this will save us, all of us, the US economy, over 700 billion dollars.
If there is no vote on these tax cuts, they will expire and everyone will go back to tax levels of the 90's, middle class and rich alike.
The right is holding up a vote to keep the middle class tax cuts only for the richest of us.
They are saying, if the richest don't get a tax cut than no one can.
Cut taxes on the bottom 98% and bring taxes up on the top 2%. The bottom 98% will get more money to stimulate the economy and GIVE BACK TO THE TOP 2%! Then the top 2% can continue paying higher taxes without their wealth being severely damaged!
2. you don't have to pay much for them(we need the government to have income, yes the government can be more efficient; however less income increases the likelihood of legitimate and needed programs being underfunded; the negative affects of such a thing could cost us dearly)
3. they keep people happy(which people? not everyone is happy with a tax cut, especially to the rich which the larger middle and poor classes would benefit more from it and cause society to improve more)
4. you cut wasteful spending(or possibly increase debt when the spending doesn't stop, spending by the government and the government's income is loosely and poorly correlated. They are one of the largest financial entities; a cut in income does not correlate to a decrease in spending )
5. people spend more(not as much as though other means, in order for the rich to really put their money to work, there first needs to be enough demand(aka consumer spending) for them to do such; only then can them having more money allow or encourage them to create businesses, which the richest can do with or without tax cuts; rather the upper middle class/lower upper class should receive tax cuts so there is more competition in the market(after consumer spending has increased), we should encourage small businesses to expand rather then large ones to expand)
1)Democrats waste money by throwing it out the window
2)Democrats lie about what they are going to do with our money
3)Government doesn't create jobs BUSINESSES DO so cut the knots that have been holding businesses down
4)We were the best country in the world when we had no income tax
5)people spend more which goes to business who hire more
if we aren't able to eliminate the income tax in total then we should at least close loop holes
6)the "rich" earned that money just as much if not more then the other classes because they worked hard so i don't think we should say oh good job you did the american dream now you get more taxes
