CreateDebate


Debate Info

46
37
NICE! Not the best for economy
Debate Score:83
Arguments:37
Total Votes:114
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 NICE! (17)
 
 Not the best for economy (20)

Debate Creator

repubgal(336) pic



What do you think of Obama's Economic Plan?

Long-term? Targeted at the greedy? Hmmm

Ok, so it's a little late in the game for this, but I have to know!

I want to know if you think Obama's economic plan to, "spread the wealth around" is the best for the country. Long & short term.

NICE!

Side Score: 46
VS.

Not the best for economy

Side Score: 37
4 points

repubgal -

Obama is not raising taxes on the middle class.

Obama is not raising taxes on the middle class.

Obama is not raising taxes on the middle class.

Obama is not raising taxes on the middle class.

Obama is not raising taxes on the middle class...

I gave you the link to his plan, I've told you in every response I've made, yet, again and again you keep on insisting that he's raising taxes on the middle class.

So again,

Obama is not raising taxes on the middle class.

Obama is not raising taxes on the middle class.

Obama is not raising taxes on the middle class.

Obama is not raising taxes on the middle class.

Is it starting to sink in yet? It's almost like you want him to raise those taxes, just so you can say, "Obama's raising everyone's taxes."

Side: NICE!
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
3 points

Hey um, so, is Obama going to raise taxes on the middle class?

I just really want to know. (;

Side: Not the best for economy
2 points

Haha. Just to annoy him....Yup, sure will.

Side: Not the best for economy
repubgal(336) Disputed
-3 points
4 points

Actually, you can ignore perceptions and look right at the numbers to see specifically who will get their taxes raised under each plan. As you can see, Obama cuts taxes for middle and lower classes more then McCain.

Supporting Evidence: McCain vs. Obama Tax Plan (www.washingtonpost.com)
Side: NICE!
iamdavidh(4816) Disputed
1 point

So, you're saying you just think he's lying?

In that case why?

How's this:

McCain sacrifices babies to the devil.

There, I know he says he doesn't, but it's my perception of him. And no matter how much you say it's not true, I'm going to tell everyone who will listen, over and over, that yeah, McCain sacrifices babies to the devil. Where there's smoke there's fire. I mean if I'm saying it, then some part of it must be true right?

That's your basic arguement.

Side: devil
2 points

Here's Obama's plan

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

The idea that he wants to "spread the wealth" is a complete lie. It's conservative's desperate attempt to make him sound like a socialist, when he obviously is not. With Obama's plan, the middle class will keep more of their money than under the McCain plan. The top 1% will pay what amounts to a pitance more in order to dig ourselves out of this hole the economic policies of the last 8 years have burried us in.

Side: NICE!
repubgal(336) Disputed
3 points

He IS spreading the wealth though! 40% of those getting some cash DO NOT PAY income taxes. Those who do, and are hard working Americans will be taxed in order to give the 40% some free money...Spreading the wealth.

Side: Not the best for economy
iamdavidh(4816) Disputed
2 points

Um... no.

No one who does not pay taxes is going to get a check in the mail from Bill Gates.

The middle class will pay less taxes.

The top 1% will pay 3% more. Say you make 1M a year, you'll pay 30k more in taxes. If you make 250k a year, you'll pay 7500 more in taxes.

Those are not huge numbers if you are making that much. I have a friend who owns a call center, he'll put 3k in a slot machine over the weekend. He makes about 200k a year, he's not even in the top bracket, and admits that if he were, 7500 over the course of a year still would not impact him or his business.

Obama's plan is clearly not any type of socialism by any standard.

There's nothing wrong with being rich, but seriously people need to stop crying about taxes. Those who reap the most benefits, should give back to the society that allowed them to become so wealthy in times of need, like now. People in the top 1% will still be able to drive Bentley's, keep their summer homes, and take their yachts out every other week, and all this crying is getting more than a little annoying to the rest of us.

Side: NICE!
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

He is spreading a little bit of wealth. This is true. He has said so himself.

But this is a good thing.

Capitalism left unchecked concentrates wealth in a tiny minority of people. That is to say, it takes wealth from everyone and hands it over to the top 1%. This is bad for two reasons:

1) It leaves the poor struggling to get by. It's not fair when people like Barack Obama's mother die from treatable diseases because they can't afford to pay for health care.

2) It's bad for the economy because no one can afford to buy anything. Look at our current economy -- the trickle down economics advocated by Bush and McCain obviously haven't been working very well.

Side: NICE!
2 points

I like it. It puts less economic stress on the majority of Americans.

I don't like who McCain identifies with and prefers:

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/15640/Barack-Obama/Barack-Obama-Campaign-Ad/Barack-Obama-New-Tax-Ad/Tax-relief

"Companies shipping jobs overseas keep their tax give a ways while 100 million Americans get no tax relief at all."

Side: NICE!

It is now 2015 and the United States is making some progress from the recession inherited from President Bush.

Side: NICE!
0 points

It makes sense that those with little should suffer the least while those with the most won't even notice the squeeze.

Side: NICE!
-1 points

I would also like to add that while Obama is not raising taxes on the middle class, he is also not a socialist!

Side: NICE!

Keynesian economic paradigms don't work. They attempt to stimulate growth by literally throwing money at the problem. You cannot ground one's economy on debt! For Keynesian macroeconomics to work, you literally have to assume people are stupid and will spend in times of scarcity due to 'consumer confidence'. Moreover, the underlying principle is that when the wealth is spread around, exponential (or a derivative thereof) will occur. However, the world is finite. What happens when the resources are consumed? Bam, recession, depression. Obama's plan pillages from the future in order to sustain today. The economic 'bubbles' of America happen because such growth is unsustainable, and need to be scaled back. Back during the tech bubble, interest rates were also reduced, taxes laxed, and what happens later? A bigger bubble bursts.

The only way to maintain sustainable growth is to ensure you're not spending something you dion't have. The reason China's 'primitive' financial markets escaped most of the financial crisis is because people in China do not spend money they don't have. Property 'equity' is fixed, if house prices goes up, you come up with enough money to fill your 5% minimum requirement if it's on a mortgage. The bank WILL sell your home BEFORE they loose money because you defaulted.

The 'stimulus' package will do nothing to alleviate the true problem. It is the idea that one can live on borrowed money, embedded in American culture since the rise of credit cards, that has caused this recession. Nothing is ever free.

Also, I find the idea of taxing those who have the means to leave the country very intriguing. The idea to tax the rich has been around for as long as rich people have existed, but surely from the previous socialist experiments one realises that the upper echelon cares not for where they reside. What I find particularly interesting about Obama's plan is to "End Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas", if they're already sending jobs overseas, it appears to me that they've a solid base already not under American influence, and if that's the case, what's keeping them paying such high taxes in the USA? Also, it mentions it will attempt to "Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud". To me, after following the sub-prime mortgage scandal, this is mutually exclusive. The mortgage fraud stems not from the companies, but from the people who do not meet standard requirements. Now the government will be paying for these mortgages. Why should such a system, which supports unethical, excessive borrowing, be supported?

So not only is this paradigm going to fail because it does not understand deep parameters that influence individual behaviour, but it actively supports those who failed the system.

Side: Not the best for economy
1 point

I love it! Thank you! You just said what I've been trying to, but you made it clear with many more words. Haha. Perfect!

Side: Not the best for economy
2 points

If you want to raise taxes on those who make more, Fine. That part I can understand conceptually, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

But there shouldn't be cuts for others when we are running an exorbitant deficit, and social security is set to collapse in the next 30 years.

If you are raising taxes on those that are diligent and motivated enough to make more, then put that money towards public works programs like improving our country's ever aging infrastructure.

This would improve our way of life, as well as provide jobs to the unemployed. If those that just lost their jobs don't want to work, ship them to Mexico so they can see what poverty really looks like. We built America with our hands, not our handouts.

Side: Not the best for economy
1 point

Spreading the wealth around is in no way the best for a long-term stable economy.

It might give us a short boost, but we need a plan that will stabilize the country...Not just scatter money.

People love Obama's plan because they see a bigger dollar sign than with McCain. Sigh. People are far too greedy. They want their money now and fast. They don't have the decency to look at how this will effect this country in let's say 10 years.

Side: Not the best for economy
1 point

Actually putting the money in the hands of those who will spend it (the lower and middle classes) will actually help the economy in the long term. Giving bigger tax breaks to the rich only leads to a greater disparity of wealth. Right now the total wealth of the richest 1% of the people in this country is equal to the total wealth of the poorest 50% of this country.

I don't think it's greedy to want to be able to feed your kids or send them to collage so they have a chance to improve their lives. Under Obama's plan these people will stand a fighting chance at moving up the social ladder. The only people who are being greedy in this scenario are the millionaires who want even more tax cuts; tax cuts McCain is more then happy to give them.

Side: NICE!
repubgal(336) Disputed
1 point

I sure don't either. It is not at all greedy to be doing such.

40% of Americans do not pay income taxes. Barack Obama is RAISING taxes on those who do pay, in order to hand out cash to those who don't. If you want to send your kids to college, and you are a long tome worker who actually pays income taxes...Looks like you'll be getting a tax increase.

Side: Not the best for economy
1 point

no country has ever nor will ever tax them self into prosperity

Side: Not the best for economy