CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


RSS MisterGuy

Reward Points:0
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
85%
Arguments:551
Debates:2
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Globalization is here, whether we like it or not. Has it had a positive impact overall? I would argue yes, but it's not like there haven't been some losers as well. The real issue is that there's no way to stop globalization.

1 point

"The U.S. government spends money that it doesn't have and gives away almost 50% of its tax revenue through foreign aid and welfare"

LOL...the foreign aid budget of the USA is something around $30-50 Billion/year (or around 1% of the U.S. federal budget), and welfare was "reformed" back in the 1990s. It's not a significant portion of the USA federal budget anymore.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/02/how-much-does-uncle-sam-spend-on-foreign-aid.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ statements/2011/apr/13/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-foreign-aid-makes-1-percent-us-b

I personally think that the USA should spend less on foreign aid (see below), but one can't balance the budget just by slashing foreign aid alone.

"If taxes are raised, they should be raised on everyone. To balance the budget you would need a 88% tax on the highest earning bracket, and after the taxes, they would actually be making less than the lower class. Taxing one group more than another is unfair, biased and immoral"

...in your wild, Right-wing fantasy world that is...ugh... Progressive taxation is another completely non-controversial issue, except on the far Right-wing in the USA. Ending the GWB tax cuts (for mostly the rich ) & taxing millionaires at a slightly higher tax rate would yield another $3-4 Trillion in federal revenue over the next decade of so. Raising taxes on corporations, especially multi-national corporations, & hedge fund managers would yield another $100 Billion or so in federal revenue over the next decade or so. Eliminating unnecessary tax breaks for extraction (like Big Oil) & toxic chemical industries would yield another $70 Billion or so in federal revenue over the next decade or so. Limiting charitable giving and state & local tax deductions would yield another $1 Trillion or so in federal revenue over the next decade or so.

Keeping the estate tax at the estate level of $3.5+ Million (which will affect 0.5% of all estates) will fund around 27% of the projected, long-term Social Security (SS) shortfall. Bringing the SS payroll tax back to its historical level of taxation (around 90% of income) will fund around 40% (or around $550 Billion over the next decade or so alone) of the projected, long-term SS shortfall. Gradually raising the full SS retirement age over time to age 70 will fund around 35% (around $110 Billion over the next decade or so alone) of the projected, long-term SS shortfall. Extending SS coverage to more state & local govt. employees will fund around 10% of the projected, long-term SS shortfall.

Is there federal spending that can be cut as well? Sure, including around $110 Billion or so in unneeded "defense" spending, around $200 Billion in foreign aid, ending the failed No Child Left Behind nonsense (around $100 Billion) and reforming farm subsidies (around $10 Billion) all over the next decade or so.

Only through a balanced approach of spending cuts & increases in revenue can the federal budget be balanced over the long-term.

"Forced redistribution of wealth is extortion and theft"

LOL...again, spoken like a true member of the far Right-wing. The idea that taxation somehow equals "theft" is a wild assertion at best. Run along now...

1 point

You're talking about the exact same thing as what GWB did with taxes, period.

Paying taxes is a necessary responsibility of being a citizen, and we have unfortunately run up debts (which were things that were paid for with borrowed money...mostly under past GOP "leadership") which basically have to paid for with taxes at some point. There's no physical way to balance the U.S. federal budget & pay down at least some of the federal debt without raising some kind of tax on someone. Better taxes be raised on those that can better afford those higher taxes than on the middle or working classes IMHO.

The issue of govt. redistributing wealth via taxation literally goes back to the Roman Republic. It's only a "controversial" issue on the far Right-wing in the USA.

1 point

Iran may have made threats when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz, but they don't have the military power to do anything but be a minor nuisance in those area waters. Their navy is a joke.

1 point

LOL...and GWB didn't "buy" people with their own money by giving them tax breaks during his term?? Please...

1 point

Nope. I've known a lot of tomboys, and a lot of them are very normal, well-adjusted people.

1 point

No, there's no point to doing that...sticking to the facts of the matter speaks volumes.

2 points

There's no reason for the USA to declare war on Iran. Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy as an alternative to petroleum, which is going to eventually run out anyways. Iran currently relies very heavily on others to refine the petroleum that they produce, and, while I don't support nuclear energy myself, Iran was given the go-ahead by the West under the Shah to develop nuclear energy. I personally think that a better solution for Iran's energy problems would better lie with wind, solar or geothermal energy, or other countries could provide Iran with enough nuclear fuel to power as many reactors as they want. In the very recent past, the USA has taken weapons-grade nuclear fuel from counties (like Mexico) that didn't want to have to safeguard it anymore...we could do the same thing with Iran if need be.

If I was Iranian & I saw what happened under the GWB Regime with the "Axis of Evil" countries (Iran, Iraq & North Korea), I'd want a nuclear weapon yesterday, not several years from now. Our potential adversaries unfortunately were shown under GWB that we'll leave you alone if you have even a crude nuclear weapon (North Korea) or we'll invade you & topple your regime (Iraq) if you don't have a nuclear weapon.

The USA doesn't need to strike Iran for Israel, since Israel is very capable of defending themselves (with nuclear weapons if need be). The mullahs that run Iran currently aren't going to attack Israel & risk their own destruction...they are cowards.

0 points

Blah, blah, blah...what's your next "argument" going to be Nazi-boy?? "And so's your mother!" Please, you've run out of mildly coherent things to say in this thread...therefore, I'm DONE responding to you here...so ramble on moron...

1 point

"You have no proof of that."

Of course I do...the falsehoods that you stated here again & again are right here in black & white for all to see.

BTW, don't like being laughed at eh?? Well, know that when others read your utter nonsense here that they'll be doing the same thing...lol...

Displaying 2 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Nicole Mitchell

About Me


"I'm nobody from nowhere."

Biographical Information
Name: Mister Guy
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Democrat
Country: United States
Religion: Atheist
Education: College Grad

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here