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.
Obama is going to score all new records for deficit spending and debt accumulation.
The administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion.
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion from 2001 to 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion in one year.
President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
So you are blaming Obama's spending on Bush. Typical.
So, did Bush sign the health care bill. Oh, yeah, Bush signed the stimulus bill as well.
At some point this administration has to take responsibility for itself. It's also not even close to accurate. Consider that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bush—to $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well.
Obama has been on history's biggest spending spree, which has included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending 10% for the last half of fiscal year 2009. Mr. Obama also hiked nondefense discretionary spending another 12% for fiscal year 2010.
Mr. Axelrod claims the pork-laden stimulus package has been a success. But Mr. Obama told Americans that if it were passed, unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%. It is now 10%. The president also said it would create 3.7 million jobs, 90% of which would be in the private sector. By Mr. Obama's standards, the stimulus failed miserably.
Many Obama defenders claim that the numbers in the graphic do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplements (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post
Here is a question?
If Bush policies were disastrous, as Obama claims, then why is he continuing them?
No, Bush didn't sign the health care bill that will cut the deficit 1 trillion over the next 20 years - instead he started a war in a country that didn't attack us, passed tax cuts while the country was in 2 wars and Medicare Part D all with borrowed money
the TARP bailouts of AIG, Bear Stearns, GM, Chrysler, Fannie and Freddie, Citigroup, Bank of America, American Express, Discover, etc happened under Bush
"An estimate of what the economy will look like if a policy is adopted contains two components: a forecast of what would happen in the absence of the policy, and an estimate of the effect of the policy. As I’ve described, our estimates of the impact of the Recovery Act have proven quite accurate. But we, like virtually every other forecaster, failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be in the absence of policy, and the degree to which the usual relationship between GDP and unemployment would break down.
By February 2009, before the Recovery Act was passed, unemployment was already over 8 percent; and by June, before the Recovery Act could have had much of an impact, it was 9½ percent. That is, our projection turned out to be wrong even before the Recovery Act had a chance to get off the ground, which is about as clear-cut evidence as one could imagine that the problem was in our assessment of the baseline, and not in the effects of the Act." - Romer http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/ files/microsites/100901-National-Press-Club.pdf
While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post
If you actually read the article it refers to, you'll see that the projected deficit then (March 21, 2009) was 1.8 trillion - the actual deficit for 2009 ended up being nearly half a trillion less than that
If Bush policies were disastrous, as Obama claims, then why is he continuing them?
Because Obama doesn't know about the special red button underneath his desk that erases the '00-'08 policies Bush forced down our throats, to use the popular neoconservative phrase.
/snark
The problem is, you aren't responding to the CPBB's graph. Here's the full article, in case you find HuffPost intolerable:
Alas, more than likely, you will criticize Obama for ending Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy, even though it will drastically reduce the yearly deficit. But you must be one of those guys who think that tax cuts on the rich increase revenue for the government via expansion of the economy. If so, then there is simply no point in arguing with you. Just keep watching Fox Business.
You're still here? Ok, simply put, you are blaming Obama for a "record" 1.47T deficit, when the graph clearly shows that the great recession (which reduces revenue), widespread Bush-era tax-cuts (which we must wait to vote to end), and wars (which will be political suicide to end) are the main reason why the deficit is so high.
Also, I'm not quite fond of your opinion on the Recovery Act. Most conservatives overlook that within the "stimulus package" there is the largest tax cuts for middle-income households (sounds too conservative to believe in, right... right?) and instead complain about mythical pork-barrel commitments like the railway connecting Los Angeles to Vegas (claimed to be debunked even by your own Chris Wallace). Furthermore, economists widely argue for the necessity of an increase in government spending for a country in a recession. I don't think you advise your doctor on how to best treat a wound. You just know that he probably shouldn't use a sledgehammer (like tax cuts for the rich, ha!).
And It is only reasonable that the extent of the stimulus will be commensurate with the depth of the recession. So your point that the stimulus package is the large the country has ever seen isn't too effective when every one around you knows that this recession is the second worst this country has ever seen. Sure, it's no Great Depression, but our population was only 92 million then, too, was it not?
It seems like this is a tired and debunked conservative talking point. Highly effective, though, in inflaming the base.
In my opinion, you should blame Bush more so than Obama, since his policies contribute more to the deficit that Obama, even if you count only his non-repealable policies (the war and the tax cuts). But really, people, it's the economy. Blame that on whomever you wish...
And the Obama health care bill wasn't forced down our throats.
along with the Stimulus Bill. Oh, please.
I did respond to the CPBB article, and the Heritage Foundation article did include the War and Tax cuts with the deficit compared to Obama spending.
But you must be one of those guys who think that tax cuts on the rich increase revenue for the government via expansion of the economy. If so, then there is simply no point in arguing with you.
It is called supply side economics. Read a book.
I'm not quite fond of your opinion on the Recovery Act
Well, Congratulations.
there is the largest tax cuts for middle-income households
Not only is Obama cutting the largest taxes for middle income households, but it is spending more than Bush. It is in the Heritage Article.
By the way, I am not conservative. I am libertarian.
"Trickle-down" economics is only effective when the nation faces a lack of supply. Only the most ideologically closed-minded person would look at a recession and neglect to see a lack of demand. But yeah, I saw the Laffer curve on Glenn Beck, too. Too bad it's only really applicable to third-world countries.
By the way, I am not conservative. I am libertarian
Libertarians are the most economically conservative bunch in American politics, so your distinction in this debate is pretty irrelevant. But I know you urge people to call you libertarian rather than conservative. I went through my own Libertarian phase in high school... read Ayn Rand, actually paid attention in my Macroeconomics class, frequently took the limited government position in my AP Government class. It was actually a pretty popular position, because you could act like you knew how free-market economies worked and argue in favor of prostitution and marijuana at the same time. Good times...
Think about that for a second. Economically conservative. meaning think before you spend try to show discipline before making a budget. The word conservative itself exudes caution and rational before making a decision.
Liberal spending and economics. Mean the opposite of conservative. example look at any state that is in financial trouble Liberal spending. Find me one red state that is in this trouble or possibly defaulting on bonds there are none. Proof
Trickle down is just a way of saying that Rich people create all the jobs that's trickle down. Because it sure can't trickle up never saw a poor person hiring people and passing on his success to others. Go read a basic book of econ.
if I give you $10 dollars you will more likely spend most of the that ten $10 But if I give you $10 and then tax you $5 you already have less to spend and inturn put back into the economy i.e. the private sector. So when people say tax cuts don't work they do it's as simple as that.
Tax cuts work, but only if someone is already being taxed too much. In economics the Laffer curve is the graphical representation of this phenomenon. In the past tax cuts have generated more revenue because tax rates were very high. Bush's tax cuts, which disproportionately helped the rich, caused government revenue to decrease significantly and our deficit to go up.
Plus you shouldn't be cutting taxes during times of economic expansion anyway, especially if these tax cuts increase the deficit.
Look at the Kennedy tax cuts. He cut taxes and as a result, personal income and government revenue increased.
Bush was a fool because if taxes are cut, then government expenses need to be cut. Thus, evading a deficit, yet Bush didn't.
He was also a fool, because we were in an economic expansion during a large part of his presidency and unlike Clinton, he ran a deficit instead of a budget.
Bush's deficit was not as severe as Obama Note: Both tax cuts and wars are included in the analysis.
You're comparing apples to oranges...or in this case, tax cuts during a time of economic growth to tax cuts during a time of economic recession. When the economy recovers the deficit will decrease, and hopefully we will eventually get a surplus. If this doesn't happen, and Obama continues to run a deficit (like Bush did) I promise you that I will be right with you on saying that Obama is mismanaging government spending...you have my word.
Who is econdataus and how is s/he a credible source?
Since President Bush took office in January 2001, he was the leading role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations.
President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010.
"In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade."Washington Post
Excessive Spending
*President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent. Welfare
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016. Debt
Who is econdataus and how is s/he a credible source?
I was kinda going under the assumption that the Kennedy tax cuts and their effects were fairly well known but if you'd like I'd be happy to provide more sources. I could have also used certain Regan tax cuts as an example (namely those for the top 5% of Americans). If you don't trust these sources, however, I would be open to looking at sources that contradict my point.
My only point was that when Reagan and Kennedy cut taxes they were cutting taxes that were very high, and therefore their cuts went a long way towards stimulating growth, and increasing government revenue. When Kennedy cut taxes of the highest bracket from 90% to 70% he was clearly on the right (downward sloping side) of the Laffer curve. This is why cutting taxes actually lead to more revenue. Bush, on the other hand, cut taxes on the wealthy when they were already clearly on the left (upward sloping) side of the Laffer curve, and then went on to claim that the taxes would pay for themselves! This is what I'm arguing against.
Honestly, I don't feel like arguing about Obama's policies, I just wanted to contradict jtopolnak's claim about the Bush tax cuts. There are people like you who claim that the stimulus bills were a waste of money, and others who claim that the recession would have been much worse without them....I really don't feel like getting into that right now.
I am aware of the effects of the Kennedy and Regan tax cuts in relation with the Laffer curve where cutting taxes on backwards slope on the graph will unfortunately give the government more money, yet this graph is dependent on the amount of spending, and this only applies to progressive taxes.
I was just messing with you. I freaking studied the graph.
With respect to Obama and his policies, even if taxes were raised back to the backwards slope, Obama is spending increased as noted with the previous links; thus taxes will have to be raised even further to the right slope.
The Bush tax cuts are across the board starting from low income at 20k a year and up. Also !5% to 20% capital gains tax affects anybody who invest in stocks which I do myself, and let me tell you it's not easy adding another 5% will hurt. I just think that the timing of this would be bad if they let them expire.
The Bush tax cuts are across the board starting from low income at 20k a year and up.
The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.
I just think that the timing of this would be bad if they let them expire.
Over the 10-year period from 2005 through 2014, the direct costs of the enacted and proposed tax cuts would total $2.8 trillion. The cost would equal 2.1 percent of the economy in 2014.*
I understand that tax cuts help stimulate the economy, but they do so at a cost: government revenue. This means that, while Bush's tax cuts may have helped the economy some, it also massively increased our deficit, and the fact that all of these cuts were aimed to mostly help the rich makes it even worse, because the rich didn't need cuts. They were already at an extremely low level of income tax in spite of the fact that wealth distribution is at an all time imbalance. In other words: the wealthiest Americans have comparitively more money then ever before, and are paying some of the lowest taxes in history when we need the money more than ever (we have a record deficit, as you may have seen from the debate description). Does any of this seem right?
All I see in this paragraph is deficit this and that. Do you know how to cut deficits? Well, cut government budgets.
How is more government revenue good? America is increasingly becoming a country of dependents. Medicaid, Medicare and other entitlements account for over 2 trillion dollars of the economy, and if these are not cut or reformed, the deficit will continue to expand or taxes will need to be raised sky high well over on the backward slope of the right side.
the rich makes it even worse, because the rich didn't need cuts.
Jobs are created by supply and demand with the help of rich people. When was the last time poor people created a job.
when we need the money more than ever
We, you mean the government, and money for the freebies.
All I see in this paragraph is deficit this and that. Do you know how to cut deficits? Well, cut government budgets.
I agree, cutting the budget is another good way to fix the deficit. Maybe we should cut military spending, like the 20 billion spent on air conditioning tents in Iraq and Afghanistan. To give you some perspective on how much this is, the annual budget for NASA is 18.9 billion. Our total defense spending is between 880 billion and 1.03 trillion dollars which is roughly the size of the budget deficit. Now obviously we can't cut out our entire military spending, but by significantly reducing our military spending by ending our unnecessary wars as well as ending the Bush tax cuts then we will go a long way towards balancing the budget.
How is more government revenue good?
Because it means that we can spend more without increasing the deficit, or alternatively begin to pay off our national debt. It also means we can improve infrastructure which, in turn, helps promote economic growth. Now the obvious flip-side to this that there is no free lunch. The money for government revenue has to come from somewhere so therefore we need to see if the societal benefits of taxing outweigh the cost. It also means that we should structure our taxes in a way that is least harmful to society...in other words, taxing those who have the most more than those who have the least.
Jobs are created by supply and demand with the help of rich people. When was the last time poor people created a job.
While I'm sure that maid, butler and driver industries may take a hit when rich individuals get a tax increase, however, other than this I'd argue that businesses create jobs. Some businesses are started by rich individuals and some are started by middle class people, but you're right that poor people rarely start their own business. What poor people do do though is spend money. They spend more of their income (as a percentage) than either the middle or upper class. This means that many of the jobs created by the middle and upper class wouldn't be able to exist if it weren't for the spending power of poor people.
We, you mean the government, and money for the freebies.
Well I do mean the government, but I mean money to begin paying off the debt, and to continue paying for necessary infrastructure that helps keep this nation running. But if you want to interpret my comments in some way that fits your ideological view of government being inherently bad, then I'm not about to stop you.
Maybe we should cut military spending, like the 20 billion spent on air conditioning tents
Well if they are over there, shouldn't they have some comfort.
The easier way to cut is ending the useless wars. That I can agree.
the annual budget for NASA is 18.9 billion. Our total defense spending is between 880 billion and 1.03 trillion dollars.
Either way, both should be cut. If it means only preserving the research and development of NASA and cutting everything else, then fine, or cutting the defense budget by 20% or more, then good.
Because it means that we can spend more without increasing the deficit
Oh, so the government can get its hands on more of our money. Then we can start building homes for the poor and call it public housing. Oh wait, they already exists, and it is a extreme failure. Why because they live in the housing for free without any incentive to maintain or improve it. Wait, how about an antipoverty programs? Wait, those only increase dependency.
It also means we can improve infrastructure which, in turn, helps promote economic growth.
Well sure, there is some infrastructure, but we don't share the same viewpoint.
It also means that we should structure our taxes in a way that is least harmful to society...in other words, taxing those who have the most more than those who have the least.
NO, cut spending. Wait, take more of people's property.
Reform Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs and not where there is more spending like the new health care bill.
I mean money to begin paying off the debt
Seriously, do you think this president or the next has any ambitions to pay off the debt. This president only raises the debt limit just until he needs to raise it again.
Well if they are over there, shouldn't they have some comfort.
Certainly...but it shouldn't cost as much to send people to space as it takes to keep people comfortable.
Either way, both should be cut. If it means only preserving the research and development of NASA and cutting everything else, then fine, or cutting the defense budget by 20% or more, then good.
Military cuts, yes. NASA cuts I'm against. Neil deGrasse Tyson does a pretty good job explaining why we need to keep it.
Oh, so the government can get its hands on more of our money. Then we can start building homes for the poor and call it public housing. Oh wait, they already exists, and it is a extreme failure. Why because they live in the housing for free without any incentive to maintain or improve it. Wait, how about an antipoverty programs? Wait, those only increase dependency.
Some social programs work some don't. There is a valid debate we can have about what social programs should and shouldn't be paid for, and I'm perfectly willing to have it. Generalizing is going to get us nowhere though.
Well sure, there is some infrastructure, but we don't share the same viewpoint.
Exactly my previous point. Some government spending is good, and some isn't. This is why we need to talk about each point individually and not just claim all is bad.
Reform Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs and not where there is more spending like the new health care bill.
I would agree that these programs need to be reformed to some extent, but I'm curious what specifically about the health care bill you don't like.
Seriously, do you think this president or the next has any ambitions to pay off the debt. This president only raises the debt limit just until he needs to raise it again.
Yes, I really do. Clinton began paying off our debt...but then Bush the "economic conservative" came in and cut taxes and increased spending. Talk about a policy removed from reality. Right now Obama has a reason for increasing the deficit: we're in a really bad recession. I've said this to you before, and I will tell you again: if the economy recovers and we are still running a budget deficit, then I will stop agreeing with stop supporting Obama on economic issues. Neither I nor you can predict the future though, so lets go ahead and wait until the economy recovers before we claim to know what is going to happen.
Idiot Mentality
Wow, that view characterizes perfectly what I and every other Obama supporter thought when he got elected. Give me a break. Pick a candidate and I'll find a supporter of theirs saying some dumb shit.
Neil deGrasse Tyson does a pretty good job explaining why we need to keep it.
Tyson is ivory-tower scientist. He does NOT understand space technology. All rockets that transport cargo to space are throw-away relics of the cold war. They were designed to launch nuclear warheads, so they are not reusable and they are not economical means of space transportation. We do not need more "astronauts" waving American flags, but we need new technology to reduce the cost of Earth-to-orbit transportation, and that what the private sector does.
Plus, if you are so about helping the poor, the 36million people living below the poverty line in America and all you's want to see is what is on Mars. It's a rock of dust, there I told you for free and has been for hundreds of millions of years. Eliminate most of transportation costs.
What programs
Social Security should be cut in half. Medicaid eliminate. Medicare should be cut in half. Welfare eliminate. Child Health care eliminated.
Health Care Bill
Expanding Medicaid by 1 trillion dollars. People getting more health care.
""In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade."Washington Post
Health care is not a right. It is a product.
Not only is the government steal for taxation and threaten jail time, but they just have to pass laws that it is legal for them to force everyone into commerce, and if you don't, you go to jail.
One of my science teachers actually gave me a pretty good example about why research, for the sake of research, is important. When Einstein first came out with his theory of relativity to describe gravity as spacial curvature, rather than just a force acting over a distance, everyone thought it was groundbreaking, but they thought it was just a cool idea and not something that could ever have any effect on our real world. The fact that it took a lunar eclipse just to confirm the theory meant that probably none of this would matter to us. Fast forward to the age of GPS satellites and we now know why this discovery was so important. Turns out you need to understand Einstein's theory of gravity to figure out where someone is on earth accurately. I could give other examples about quantum physics, but I think you understand what I'm getting at. By exploring areas at the edge of our knowledge we learn more about our universe, and in doing so we often stumble across useful information. It may not seem so at the time, but it may in 20 or 50 years. The is why it bugs me when politicians try and claim that us spending money on science is a waste, when they don't understand the importance of said research.
Nasa goes a step further though, because, as Neil deGrasse Tyson put it, they inspire younger generations to pursue scientific career paths. In country where the public school systems are doing not as well as they should be, don't you think it would be nice for kids to have a role model that encourages education and the pursuit of knowledge? Hell, that's one of the reasons I wanted to study astronomy as a little kid.
Plus, if you are so about helping the poor...
Well according to you we can help the poor by spending less money on them, so what do you suggest we do with that money instead? What programs do you suggest that could help the poor? And anyway, like you said, the amount we spend on non-discretionary spending (like the entitlement benefits you hate so much) dwarfs our spending of NASA, so I'm not sure who it would really help to stop going into space.
Programs
Like I said before, lets take these programs one at a time so they can be addressed individually.
Social Security should be cut in half.
Something definitely needs to be done about social security, because it's about to become a huge drain on our budget. In addition to just straight cuts in spending, we need to raise the age of eligibility. Currently you begin receiving benefits at age 62. This would have been affordable when the program was created because in 1935 the average life expectancy was 63.9 meaning that on average Americans would receive about 2 years of benefits. The average life expectancy is now at about 80, which means on average Americans probably get 18 years of benefits. This number is only increasing. So if we were to gradually raise the number then we would save a lot of money.
Medicaid eliminate
I don't know the numbers but the cost of E.R. visits by individuals who are too poor to afford medical treatment until they're dying, in addition to the cost of the increased spread of infectious diseases is enough for me to oppose the scraping of Medicaid. We don't live in a bubble, and a healthy society is a better one to live in.
Medicare should be cut in half
Maybe, but good luck getting that passed into law. Senior citizens vote en masse.
Welfare eliminate.
We already have a pretty good system of welfare in which people need to be searching for a job...can it be improved? Certainly. But scrapping the whole program would have numerous social negatives. Face it, we need some type of safety net. How it is structured, and how big it is can be debated, but not scrapping.
Child Health care eliminated.
Wait, what? Okay, I understand the reasoning behind the others. You don't want to rob peter to pay paul, and giving benefits to the unemployed helps encourage unemployment...I get it. I really do. When you talk about cutting healthcare for children though? Now I know you're just being a selfish prick. A child doesn't get to choose what family it was born into, and therefore requiring a child to pay its own medical bills when its parents can't is...inhumane to say the least. What are you going to cut next, foster care? I heard those little brats are annoying anyways, always crying about their dead parents. Come on, have a heart.
Health Care Bill
I understand the 1st part. I don't understand the current medicaid law to know who would be helped by this 1 trillion dollars. In general though, I'm pretty sure that more health care is a good thing, right?
I should also point out that nearly every European healthcare system is better and cheaper than ours is. In other words, government spending on healthcare doesn't always mean less efficiency. Now I know this flies in the face of your libertarian ideology, but sometimes we have to face reality. This is why I don't try and align myself with any ideology: I try and just support what works.
Health care is not a right. It is a product.
Yeah, but then again people usually don't choose their illnesses. I understand that elective surgery should come out of pocket, or that people who risk their health should pay more, but otherwise its just kind of luck of the draw. To me it makes sense that everyone pays into a pool and those who need healthcare get it. Normal supply and demand rules just leave us with people who have to choose between food and rent, or life. Not typically a desirable place to be. I like market forces, but this is an area where maybe a public option would be better for everybody (once again, see Europe).
Not only is the government steal for taxation and threaten jail time, but they just have to pass laws that it is legal for them to force everyone into commerce, and if you don't, you go to jail.
Rawr Rawr Rawr...I disagree with a new bill, and therefore am going to call taxes I don't like stealing and complain about jail time for tax evasion. Exaggeration at the expense of practicality! RAWR!
If people only paid the taxes they felt like, then we'd have very few taxes being paid. Can we please have a grownup discussion about the issues? Okay, good.
Fast forward to the age of GPS satellites and we now know why this discovery was so important. Turns out you need to understand Einstein's theory of gravity to figure out where someone is on earth accurately.
Inspire younger generations to pursue scientific careers
Is the public sector only capable of inspiring people? Millions of athletes are inspired to play professional sports in the private entertainment industry.
How many people inspire to work at PBS instead they could work at ABC, CBS or NBC?
Why couldn't students inspire to work for X private research firm? Like many inspire to play football in Dallas.
The transportation of space flight must be privatized.
Social Security
Raising the age to 70 or 75 would be a good idea, along with cutting benefits.
A child doesn't get to choose what family it was born into, and therefore requiring a child to pay its own medical bills when its parents can't is.
People choose to have a child, did they not? Again, who forced them to have sex? Take some responsibility. Maybe they should wait until they can afford it or save the taxpayers some money by using a condom; thus it would raise the average IQ of human gene pool.
What are you going to cut next, foster care?
Why not?
Of the 500,000 women seeking to adopt, only 100,000 had actually applied to adopt a child.
Adoptions in California: Current Demographic Profiles and Projections Through the End of the Century by Barth, Brooks, and Iyer (1995) found the following:
Most adoptive parents are two parent families aged 31 to 40. A growing number of parents are aged 41 to 49. Most parents attended or completed college. The number of parents with college degrees increased sharply from 1983 to 1993.
Fewer that 20% of families adopting independently earned less that $30,000, compared with 80% in 1982. Nearly two-thirds of adoptive families earned $50,000 or more. These incomes were not adjusted for inflation, although inflation alone would not explain the shift.
Families adopting from the public child welfare system are similar to those adopting independently, in that the majority of each are 31 to 40 years old. A significant number of public agency adopters, however, are less than 30 years old. Public agency adopters have generally lower levels of education and income than independent adopters. Since 1989, public agencies are less likely to place children in families earning $50,000 or more, and more likely to place children in families earning $30,000 or less. * Adoption Stats
I should also point out that nearly every European healthcare system is better and cheaper than ours is. In other words, government spending on healthcare doesn't always mean less efficiency.
Why European health care is cheaper? Ration Care 12
If people don't choose their illnesses and health care is a right, then how is it that a job is a not a right? Remember, you said people don't choose their parents nor their careers because they are forced into that job. Why is a job not a right?
I'm pretty sure that more health care is a good thing, right?
Of course, for those you get it for free or a discount. Not for me because I have to pay more.
Health care bill will cost 1 trillion dollars. ABC
If people only paid the taxes they felt like, then we'd have very few taxes being paid. Can we please have a grownup discussion about the issues? Okay, good.
Since you think paying taxes is so great, why don't you pay more. The government never denies over zealous citizens from paying more taxes.
Yeah, I am waiting on your side. I am waiting for the dependents of the government to grow up.
I completely agree...where it not for private research we probably wouldn't have even a tenth of the technologies we enjoy today. Even with the nasa technologies, it was private companies that put these products to good use. Trust me, I agree. What we also need though, is research for the sake of research. I cited the numerous technologies discovered by NASA and the advancements in medicine discovered from fruit fly research. These are the advantages of having government spending go to scientific endeavors. Don't think though that I am saying that the government is the only entity that can make important discoveries, but we need both.
Is the public sector only capable of inspiring people...
You seem to make my point for me. Most kids are inspired to become athletes, or copy their favorite musicians. Out of these kids how many are actually going to reach this level? Not a lot. What's going to be the alternative career of the rest? Well I don't know what jobs overlap with football and basketball skills, but hopefully they were paying attention is school as well.
My point is that as far as science goes, one of the most inspiring professions for young people is an astronaut, and this is because these astronauts are going "where no man has gone before." Name a private sector science career that has action figures that kids will actually want to play with, and I'll concede that you're right.
I'm not saying all these kids will end up at NASA (in fact most won't), but it will get them an early start at being interested in learning about science, and there are a lot of jobs that require background in science...and almost all of these jobs are good ones (a lot better than the not quite professional football players will likely get).
People choose to have a child, did they not? Again, who forced them to have sex? Take some responsibility. Maybe they should wait until they can afford it or save the taxpayers some money by using a condom; thus it would raise the average IQ of human gene pool.
So punish the parents by punishing the children who have done nothing wrong. I like the logic there. Also, if someone is having a kid when they can't afford healthcare, chances are they aren't thinking enough ahead to weigh the costs of having a child.
Why European health care is cheaper? Ration Care 1 2
The heritage foundation? Nice source.
Rationing care would explain why it's cheaper but it wouldn't explain why its better. It wouldn't explain why the U.S. has such a low life expectancy and high infant mortality rate when compared to countries with "socialized medicine". Shouldn't we be getting better services for our extra bucks? You would also expect our system to be more efficient since it is controlled by market forces, but you'd be wrong again.
The only reason people mention "rationing" in other nations is because their systems are more transparent, whereas ours aren't controlled by the government and therefore the statistics are much more difficult to find (the health industry doesn't want to advertise how many people it denies healthcare too). When we look at how many people in the U.S. are uninsured, it becomes obvious we too ration healthcare...just in a different way.
If you can give me some rubric on which to measure healthcare of different nations that doesn't put the U.S. behind nations with single payer healthcare then I am all ears. Until then though, I'd like you to explain why a country with a per capita GDP one fifth that of the U.S. has a higher life expectancy.
Since you think paying taxes is so great, why don't you pay more. The government never denies over zealous citizens from paying more taxes.
I contribute more by donating to charities and volunteering, which will hopefully help others to contribute more to society so that less money is needed as a safety net.
Yeah, I am waiting on your side. I am waiting for the dependents of the government to grow up.
I'm not waiting, I'm trying to help them get on their feet. Listen, I'm open to any ideas that may help reduce the level of poverty we have in this country. That is why I support public education because it gives people a chance to contribute more to society by getting a better paying job then would otherwise be possible. Not everyone is born into families that can afford to send them to private schools and pay for college, so not everyone has had the same opportunities as you and I. I'm not delusional, and I understand life will never be completely fair, but we can at least give these people a fighting chance. Maybe you think welfare isn't the answer, and you could probably make some pretty good arguments why, but we need to do something. Micro-loans have worked pretty well in developing countries, so maybe they would work well here at home. If we took a portion of the money we use for welfare and instead loaned it to low income people looking to start a business or something, then that would be a much cheaper option of helping these people.
Back to the economy, however, I'm waiting for some U.S. politicians to grow up. You can't claim to be an economic conservative and then not balance the budget. At least Obama is doing what he said he was going to do (whether you agree with him or not). From what I've seen of the tea partiers they want lower taxes (which we have) but haven't suggested any workable solutions as to how to balance the deficit.
Is the public sector only capable of inspiring people?
You seem to make my point for me.
That is a question and not a statement.
There has only been 500 astronauts in space ever reaching 100 km WIKI whereas there are over 1760 football players in the NFL every year.
Name a private sector science career that has action figures that kids will actually want to play with, and I'll concede that you're right.
If you can name a public professional sports athlete, then I will concede your right.
Private industry inspires more people for careers than public.
So punish the parents by punishing the children who have done nothing wrong. I like the logic there.
Where in my statement do I say punish? It is more about responsibility and knowledge of situation..
Also, if someone is having a kid when they can't afford healthcare, chances are they aren't thinking enough ahead to weigh the costs of having a child.
Again, how is that my problem? I didn't have a baby yet, I should have had one and use it as a excuse to be able to afford healthacare by complaining to the government about private company abuses and force others to pay for it.
The heritage foundation? Nice source.
Wow, how about that bias disparage of a highly credible source?
Now, if I used Center for American Progress, would that be a credible source. Probably, because it is liberal. Your liberal bias hemorrhages profusely.
I contribute more by donating to charities and volunteering, which will hopefully help others to contribute more to society so that less money is needed as a safety net.
I would rather donate more private money to private charities than to be forced by government bureaucrats with intimidation of jail time.
Low life expectancy and high infant mortality rate
That is due to America's poor exercise and diet habits. Texas State Fair serves deep fried butter.
Not everyone is born into families that can afford to send them to private schools and pay for college, so not everyone has had the same opportunities as you and I.
I support public education as well, positive externality, remember, but I don't agree with government giveaways.
I'm not delusional, and I understand life will never be completely fair, but we can at least give these people a fighting chance. Maybe you think welfare isn't the answer, and you could probably make some pretty good arguments why, but we need to do something.
I love how you assume that I was born in a rich family. No, my father worked his ass off for the benefit of his children, and he never received any government giveaways.
Micro-loans have worked pretty well in developing countries,
How would they work if those people are on welfare?
If we took a portion of the money we use for welfare and instead loaned it to low income people looking to start a business or something, then that would be a much cheaper option of helping these people.
You do realize that they only get some $300 to $600 a month. How would that work? There is no new income.
any workable solutions as to how to balance the deficit.
Yes, there is always a trade-off and both sides of the argument agree that the more money you put into the hands of the consumer, the more the economy is stimulated. That is why Democrats recently pushed so hard for unemployment Insurance, why the recovery act had the largest tax cuts for middle income workers, and why the Senate Democrats do not want to end the Bush tax cuts for people making under 250,00 dollars a year, 98% of those effected by the tax cuts. But the trade-off teeters to the other side when considering the affluent 2%, whose spending isn't really affected but whose contributions to the state will be greatly appreciated by a mere 4% increase in taxes.
Liberals, however, do dispute with (...more like baffle at) the seemingly hypocritical position on the conservative side of the aisle. The position that we can't even spend the 33 billion (ibtimes) to help those most in need and stimulate the economy because we have such a huge deficit, but we also can't raise taxes on the rich, a party whose spending is hardly influenced by a change in taxes, a mere 4%, from 36% to 40% (Buchanan on Morning Joe yesterday) to increase revenue by 40 billion a year (dailyfinance).
To me it seems that only the most far-right conservatives (i.e. John "Restaurants have a right to discriminate" Stossel Libertarians) really accept the "trickle-down" economics as a policy for a Recession. To the rest, they will probably only propound it in order to push their ideological small government agenda. But I'm not that cynical.
The main reason why giving more money to the rich is the very thing we shouldn't do is that a recession isn't caused by a lack of supply. It's caused by a lack of demand. I do agree with the economic theory that suppliers with more money can supply more. 5 years olds can see the logic in this. But that flagrantly isn't our problem, and only the most ideological minds would refuse to see this.
We still have almost a 10% unemployment rate, a still volatile housing market, an unstable stock market and nearly all of the states running up multi-billion dollar deficits. What is this mindless spending accomplishing? Some might say 225,000 jobs. Those were temporary census jobs and those were cut in June. The wars cost $1.05 trillion. http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Obama spent the cost of the Iraq war with his stimulus package. and he tops this total with his health care package. And now he wants another stimulus package? I think not! He wants to tax his way to wealth? We can't afford new taxes in this economy. No more!
Why do you assume that people are spending more when the deficit increases? There are two sides of the table. One expenses, the other revenue. Do you not expect that a GREAT recession would cause a GREAT reduction in revenue for the government?
Going on a diet when you're starving is not a good idea.
bush is the whole promblem we were fine with clinton and then happhead red neck bush comes along and startes a useless war and cuts taxes for weathy what an iditiot and cheated on the the ection
I guess you didn't catch on to my sarcasm. You are essentially discounting Clinton's balancing of the budget because he did it through taxes, and exculpating Bush's toppling of the budget because the wars he started were "necessary".
You've evaded the issue of simply balancing a budget into an ideologically tinged scale of values in which the measure of a president's success is the degree to which he cuts spending (beside on "necessary" wars, of course).
Yeah, the wars may have been necessary, but Bush still got us locked into them.
You can't tax your way to wealth. People just won't stand for it. You know here in California, it's the only state with a manufacturers tax. meaning they tax the equipment and machinery companies use and buy. That is a damn good reason for those companies to leave the state and go to another state or overseas.
Taxing your way to wealth will hurt in the long run. It may provide immediate relief.
Just to add my observations, Bush made a number of expensive commitments that Obama must continue to support to this day, which only adds to his portion of the deficit, secondly we just came out of a major market collapse and no matter what president we had, they'd still have a lot of debt from it.
This doens't quite go with debate but just wanted to let people know what our current President is doing behind our backs.
It is an insult to the American people that the Administration chose to make an appointment of this scale during a congressional recess. So much for their promises of transparency and openness.
Dr. Berwick, an advocate of government rationed health care, was nominated by the President to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on April 19, but Democratic leaders in the Senate have not even scheduled a hearing on his nomination. The public deserves to know how Dr. Berwick will handle an agency that spends over $800 billion in taxpayer money, but it is clear the President wants to keep his views and agenda hidden from the American people.
The President is right that ‘Washington games’ are being played with this nomination—but he’s misidentified the players.
In fact, Berwick was explaining that we are currently rationing care. In the interview with Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick acknowledges that the current health care system already rations care and that the question for the future is how best to do it.
Indeed, insurance companies already ration care. The insurance industry has already admitted that it currently uses cost benefit analyses to determine health care coverage. In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Wellpoint chief medical officer Dr. Sam Nussbaum told co-host Steve Inskeep that "where the private sector has been far more effective than government programs is in limiting clinical services to those that are best meeting the needs of patients." Former CIGNA senior executive Wendell Potter testified in front of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that "insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick" and that insurers "dump small businesses whose employees' medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected."
And if there is a government health care plan, and when resources are thin and revenue is low, they will not ration care. What about the billions wasted on medicaid and medicare fraud?
I don't listen to Beck and TV media or need to to get my information about the implications of the insurance bill, or the fin reg bill, and pray to god there won't be a crap and trade bill. All that is, is Big brother getting more of their hands on money. I attend a monthly business meeting and talk with business people in my community Business owners anywhere from 5 to 100 employees and we discuss what we are doing and what we are seeing. Every single one of them says the same thing they are confused about all of what Washington is throwing down on business and for small business to try to make sense of a 2500 page bill is not easy. So with all that being said private sector is holding back from hiring or advertising and holding onto cash so that they can stay in business because they are worried about the political climate and uncertainty about new regulations. The timing of all of this during a bad recession is making it worse and keeping things slow. Honestly we don't know the full implications of the Insurance bill, and neither do the politicians who passed it without even reading it. So knowing that we have to put our trust in the FED scares the hell out of business. When business is unsure about the the true cost and we are only relying on in hopes that the big GOV has done a good bill you can see why private sector right now is freaked out.
"The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House."
