• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Great Michael Moore advice to Obama

Boo Radley said:
The trick would be to show that one caused the other. How many other factors were involved?
Click to expand...

I just meant to show that cutting taxes doesn't always mean reducing tax revenue. Cutting taxes does, indeed, have a positive influence on the expansion of business. When businesses expand, jobs are created and the economy grows. When there are more jobs, there are more people paying taxes.
 
ElijahGalt said:
I just meant to show that cutting taxes doesn't always mean reducing tax revenue. Cutting taxes does, indeed, have a positive influence on the expansion of business. When businesses expand, jobs are created and the economy grows. When there are more jobs, there are more people paying taxes.
Click to expand...

I find you to be a reasonable fellow, so I mean this to also be reasonable. But I'm not sure minor tax changes have that much effect at all. Historically we've done well with a high tax rate and with low tax rate. And wasn't just a study that showed tax cuts wouldn't effect the job market at all?

It gets kind of tricky sorting though this, as there are so many factors that influence business and economic success. So, while I agree more people working increase revenues, I doubt tax cuts play a significant role in creating jobs.
 
Boo Radley said:
I find you to be a reasonable fellow, so I mean this to also be reasonable. But I'm not sure minor tax changes have that much effect at all. Historically we've done well with a high tax rate and with low tax rate. And wasn't just a study that showed tax cuts wouldn't effect the job market at all?

It gets kind of tricky sorting though this, as there are so many factors that influence business and economic success. So, while I agree more people working increase revenues, I doubt tax cuts play a significant role in creating jobs.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting how much we are all forced to pay in taxes, both businesses and individuals. We pay a payroll tax, our employer pays an additional payroll tax on top of that, plus all of their taxes and fees required by the government. When you walk out your door, you're bound to pay taxes at least a hundred times a day.

If government were naturally capable of managing our tax money wisely, then perhaps we wouldn't have such discontent over the issue. Instead, our government wastes so much of our money, that we wonder if we could have done a better job. We should be empowered to control our finances and our own future.
 
Last edited:
ElijahGalt said:
You're forgetting how much we are all forced to pay in taxes, both businesses and individuals. We pay a payroll tax, our employer pays an additional payroll tax on top of that, plus all of their taxes and fees required by the government. When you walk out your door, you're bound to pay taxes at least a hundred times a day.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm forgetting that at all. Dispite this, people still work and people still hire, and have done so historically regardless of the tax rate. When the economy is bad, it doesn't magically get better with a tax cut. Instead, other factors have to fall into place before business expands, including a higher demand. Money ahs to be available at the bottom, or no amount of tax cut at the top will encourage expansion.
 
Boo Radley;1059116454]
If something was really neccssary, both would actually argue for it. WWII was actually neccessary, there was a nation that attacked us, another that had already declared war against us, there was no doubt about any of it. SInce then there has not been enough to even warrant a declaration of war, and that is the problem. It is war with too little reason for war.
Click to expand...

Was it necessary? What about WWI? There were many at that time, before, during and after these wars who wanted America to be isolationist. I certainly don't know why the United States was involved in WWI, nor Canada or any non-European nations.

But if any President starts a war, and the Congress agrees, then his successor should support that decision. That includes during election campaigns also. A house divided cannot stand and right now America is certainly a house divided.
I can't help what you believe, but I can link a defintion of the word if you think that would help. And I know of both those things, but it doesn't change what would have been required to pacify VN. It would have required killing in numbers large enough to amount to genocide.
Click to expand...

"Killing in numbers large enough to amount to genocide" is not genocide. And as the United States was also supporting the Vietnamese people the idea of any "genocide" at all doesn't make any sense whatsoever.l

Or perhaps some are just too willing to accept any justification. When we left VN, America went right along, and didn't fall to communism, as there was never any threeat to this country from VN.
Click to expand...

I can't seem to make sense of this. Are you saying Vietnam didn't fall to the Communists?
Castro existed so close to this country, and yet we didn't fall.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of anyone claiming that merica might fall because of Fidel Castro. Who has ever made that argument?

No war was required, and only real show of streangth, and we were fine.
Click to expand...

The only "show of strength" with Cuba, as i recall, was the Bay Of Pigs.

War isn't magic, and isn't always necessary. And while it is SOMETIMES necessary, there should be strong evidence that it is exactly that, NECESSARY. Vitenam was not, and history shows that clearly. And Iraq was not, and that too is pretty damn clear.
Click to expand...

Whether it was necessary or not, in your mind, a huge majority of the elected officials in the American government felt otherwise. Those involved on the ground feel otherwise also. The choice seems quite clear. You support your government, and thus your country, or you support the enemy. I think we all know the position your enemies would hope for.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
I don't think I'm forgetting that at all. Dispite this, people still work and people still hire, and have done so historically regardless of the tax rate. When the economy is bad, it doesn't magically get better with a tax cut. Instead, other factors have to fall into place before business expands, including a higher demand. Money ahs to be available at the bottom, or no amount of tax cut at the top will encourage expansion.
Click to expand...

My whole argument is that money should be available at the bottom. Taxes are monies being taken from the bottom and given to the top, to be dispersed as a group of powerful individuals see fit.

And of course jobs can be created when tax rates are high. But there's no doubt that if a business must pay x number of dollars to the government, it ultimately means that money is taken out of their budget. It increases their overhead costs. And large overhead costs doesn't exactly send a signal to enlarge the business.
 
ElijahGalt said:
My whole argument is that money should be available at the bottom. Taxes are monies being taken from the bottom and given to the top, to be dispersed as a group of powerful individuals see fit.

And of course jobs can be created when tax rates are high. But there's no doubt that if a business must pay x number of dollars to the government, it ultimately means that money is taken out of their budget. It increases their overhead costs. And large overhead costs doesn't exactly send a signal to enlarge the business.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with cutting taxes for working people at the bottom. And I think there are some business taxes that can be lessened. But taxes with those at the top end of the specturm generally don't trickle down at all. They neither go to hire people or to spend. So, I'm doubtful that taxes should be reduced at the top end.

I'm not even sure tax cuts at the lower end actually do anything, as the amount is so small as to matter much. I just have no objection to it.
 
Grant said:
Was it necessary? What about WWI? There were many at that time, before, during and after these wars who wanted America to be isolationist. I certainly don't know why the United States was involved in WWI, nor Canada or any non-European nations.

But if any President starts a war, and the Congress agrees, then his successor should support that decision. That includes during election campaigns also. A house divided cannot stand and right now America is certainly a house divided.
Click to expand...

You'll notice those two were declared wars, and not just presidental choice, meaning congress had to stand accountable. They are much more likley to have a very good reason when they have to declare war than when they just pass the buck to the president. I think this is whyn our founding fathers put that power in congress.


"Killing in numbers large enough to amount to genocide" is not genocide. And as the United States was also supporting the Vietnamese people the idea of any "genocide" at all doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is because you think we were representing the Vietnamese people. One of the reasons they were able to fight us so well was because we did not have the support of the vietnamese people. So, you would have to kill large numbers of the people in order to win. We were never goign to do that, nor should we.



I can't seem to make sense of this. Are you saying Vietnam didn't fall to the Communists?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying we didn't. They falling wasn't and isn't a threat to us. Never was.


I've never heard of anyone claiming that merica might fall because of Fidel Castro. Who has ever made that argument?
Click to expand...

No one I know of, but if someone that close to us wasn't a threat, how can you argue a communist VN was?

The only "show of strength" with Cuba, as i recall, was the Bay Of Pigs.
Click to expand...

Think missle crisis.



Whether it was necessary or not, in your mind, a huge majority of the elected officials in the American government felt otherwise. Those involved on the ground feel otherwise also. The choice seems quite clear. You support your government, and thus your country, or you support the enemy. I think we all know the position your enemies would hope for.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think they did. We ahd the fever, and some capitalised on that fever, and congress, seeing the writing on the wall when those who objected lost their seats, simply passed the buck to the president. But many in doing so argued that Saddam was not at that level.

And no, you should support your government only when they earn it, I believe someone once said. Blind obediance is something more asked for in a communist country than in a free country.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
I have no problem with cutting taxes for working people at the bottom. And I think there are some business taxes that can be lessened. But taxes with those at the top end of the specturm generally don't trickle down at all. They neither go to hire people or to spend. So, I'm doubtful that taxes should be reduced at the top end.

I'm not even sure tax cuts at the lower end actually do anything, as the amount is so small as to matter much. I just have no objection to it.
Click to expand...

So, allowing people to retain the money that they earned doesn't do anything, but giving it to the feds actually promotes prosperity?

How can you say for certain that cutting taxes on the wealthiest of Americans doesn't do anything? Businesses tend to expand when the owners have more money to spend.
 
ElijahGalt said:
So, allowing people to retain the money that they earned doesn't do anything, but giving it to the feds actually promotes prosperity?

How can you say for certain that cutting taxes on the wealthiest of Americans doesn't do anything? Businesses tend to expand when the owners have more money to spend.
Click to expand...

Not much. I doubt I would even notice the increaseor the decrease. I didn't notice the Bush tax cuts. I spent no more and no less than I would have otherwise.

And people do study the spending habits of all groups of people, and studies that have been psoted on these htreads here show that the wealthy simply don't spend the money they get from tax cuts. So, what supports the notion that they do?

As for giving it to the feds, there is that deficit thingie to worry about. If the government is going to spend, they should have the revenue to pay for it. So, while I also think we should cut spending, it is just as important to increase revenue, increase taxes.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not much. I doubt I would even notice the increaseor the decrease. I didn't notice the Bush tax cuts. I spent no more and no less than I would have otherwise.

And people do study the spending habits of all groups of people, and studies that have been psoted on these htreads here show that the wealthy simply don't spend the money they get from tax cuts. So, what supports the notion that they do?

As for giving it to the feds, there is that deficit thingie to worry about. If the government is going to spend, they should have the revenue to pay for it. So, while I also think we should cut spending, it is just as important to increase revenue, increase taxes.
Click to expand...

I just gave you Reagan's tax cuts as an example. JFK's tax cuts were another success. Ultimately, there is no way to effectively gauge how, when, or where people will spend their money if a tax cut is actually put in place. But it is in best interest of the PEOPLE to spend their money how they see fit, not how you think they should spend it.

People say that capital gains tax are for the rich, but I've never been hired by a poor man.

If all we needed to do to stimulate the economy would be to tax the rich, then we could effectively take 80% of their income and voilà! All our economic problems are solved. How much is enough?
 
ElijahGalt said:
I just gave you Reagan's tax cuts as an example. JFK's tax cuts were another success. Ultimately, there is no way to effectively gauge how, when, or where people will spend their money if a tax cut is actually put in place. But it is in best interest of the PEOPLE to spend their money how they see fit, not how you think they should spend it.

People say that capital gains tax are for the rich, but I've never been hired by a poor man.

If all we needed to do to stimulate the economy would be to tax the rich, then we could effectively take 80% of their income and voilà! All our economic problems are solved. How much is enough?
Click to expand...

To which I asked, can you prove the tax cuts were the only factor? or even the single biggest factor? And if they were, hy did we have grotwth with higher tax rates? How did we have growth slow with tax cuts in place?

Like I said, yes, we've seen growth with a low tax rate, but we've also seen it with a high tax rate.


I'll continue tomorrow as I've been called away.
 
Boo Radley;1059116558]
You'll notice those two were declared wars, and not just presidental choice, meaning congress had to stand accountable. They are much more likley to have a very good reason when they have to declare war than when they just pass the buck to the president. I think this is whyn our founding fathers put that power in congress.
Click to expand...

And in fact that's just what happened.

House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq, October 10, 2002
Perhaps it is because you think we were representing the Vietnamese people. One of the reasons they were able to fight us so well was because we did not have the support of the vietnamese people. So, you would have to kill large numbers of the people in order to win. We were never goign to do that, nor should we.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously believe the people wanted Communism? And killing large numbers of people in order to win is not uncommon in a war.. But it is not "genocide" as you earlier claimed.

No, I'm saying we didn't. They falling wasn't and isn't a threat to us. Never was.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of anyone claiming that North Vietnam was a threat to the American mainland. I don't quite see your point here.
No one I know of, but if someone that close to us wasn't a threat, how can you argue a communist VN was?
Click to expand...

But I'm not making that argument. I have no idea where you're going with this.

Think missle crisis.
Click to expand...

The "show of strength" was with the USSR, not Cuba.


No, I don't think they did. We ahd the fever, and some capitalised on that fever, and congress, seeing the writing on the wall when those who objected lost their seats, simply passed the buck to the president. But many in doing so argued that Saddam was not at that level.
Click to expand...

There was Maxine Waters and perhaps one or two others. Otherwise the vast majority in the House and Senate approved, and their votes show it.

And no, you should support your government only when they earn it, I believe someone once said. Blind obediance is something more asked for in a communist country than in a free country.
Click to expand...

Whatever someone said at one time, no one is asking for "blind obedience". This is hyperbole. The United States is involved in a war, to which elected politicians agreed, and with a very dangerous enemy. There are many Americans who support terrorist propaganda and Michael Moore is one many. That's just a fact.
 
Boo Radley said:
To which I asked, can you prove the tax cuts were the only factor? or even the single biggest factor? And if they were, hy did we have grotwth with higher tax rates? How did we have growth slow with tax cuts in place?

Like I said, yes, we've seen growth with a low tax rate, but we've also seen it with a high tax rate.


I'll continue tomorrow as I've been called away.
Click to expand...

I can't prove that tax cuts were the only factor, but I only use the example to prove that higher taxes does not automatically mean higher revenue.

As for the growth when high taxes are in place, you can call a 1% growth in GDP growth, but it's certainly a very small growth. Show me historical examples of relatively HIGH tax rates coupled with a relatively high growth in GDP. If you think that 1% growth in GDP is high, then never mind. If that's the case, we have very different views of economic growth.

And also, please be more specific (especially in regards to slow growth with tax cuts in place).
 
ElijahGalt said:
I can't prove that tax cuts were the only factor, but I only use the example to prove that higher taxes does not automatically mean higher revenue.

As for the growth when high taxes are in place, you can call a 1% growth in GDP growth, but it's certainly a very small growth. Show me historical examples of relatively HIGH tax rates coupled with a relatively high growth in GDP. If you think that 1% growth in GDP is high, then never mind. If that's the case, we have very different views of economic growth.

And also, please be more specific (especially in regards to slow growth with tax cuts in place).
Click to expand...

I would agree neither is automatic, but if taxes don't control the economy, and I don't believe they do, then it would be better revenue than there would be otherwise.

And I'm not talking 1% versus 50% or any such unbalanced fraction. I say the ecoonomy has done well with both a high tax rate and with a low tax rate, that the tax rate seems to have no efect on the economy at all.

Throughout 1980s, President Reagan took the top marginal tax rate down from 70% to 28%. The average growth rate between 1979 and 1989 was a sturdy 3.05 percent. In the early 1990s, Presidents Bush and Clinton raised the top marginal rate from 28% to nearly 40%. The average growth rate between 1989 and 1999: a slightly higher 3.23 percent.

Going back three decades, the five years of greatest GDP growth -- 1983-1984, and 1997-1999 -- occurred in years where the top marginal rate was 50% and 39.6%, respectively. Today it is 35%.

History Does Not Show That Higher Taxes Hurt the Economy - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

Overall, the graph suggests that yes, Virginia, cutting taxes reduces revenue. But it also tells us that stuff happens: the stock bubble inflated revenues in the late 90s, the collapse of that bubble hit revenues thereafter, then the housing bubble did its thing, and so on.

Taxes and revenues -- another history lesson - NYTimes.com

There's plenty more. But the point is people tend to look at history selective and often make a causal relationship error in their thinking. As state above, stuff happens, and this stuff, not taxes, has more to do with the economy than taxes do. Taxes seem to have little to no effect at all.
 
Grant said:
And in fact that's just what happened.

House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq, October 10, 2002
Click to expand...

You';re misinformed. That was not a declaration of war. it was a passing of the buck. It said, let Bush decide, and allowed congress to not be held accountable.

Do you seriously believe the people wanted Communism? And killing large numbers of people in order to win is not uncommon in a war.. But it is not "genocide" as you earlier claimed.
Click to expand...

I seriously believe people prefer to chart their own course and didn't want us doing it for them. Yes, that is what I believe.


I've never heard of anyone claiming that North Vietnam was a threat to the American mainland. I don't quite see your point here.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read up on the history of the war. Look up domino theory and how we saw that as a threat to the US (which would be the homeland).


But I'm not making that argument. I have no idea where you're going with this.
Click to expand...

You can't be fighting for our freedom if that freedom isn't threatened. You can't call VN a threat if they don't threaten us. Without those things, we had no business being there.

The "show of strength" was with the USSR, not Cuba.
Click to expand...

In Cuba.




There was Maxine Waters and perhaps one or two others. Otherwise the vast majority in the House and Senate approved, and their votes show it.
Click to expand...

No, passing the Buck and saying let Bush decide is not a declaration of war. Read Kerry's speech for example, where he clearly states Saddam did not reach the level of htreat that required invasion outside of the UN. The bill was not a declaration of war.

Whatever someone said at one time, no one is asking for "blind obedience". This is hyperbole. The United States is involved in a war, to which elected politicians agreed, and with a very dangerous enemy. There are many Americans who support terrorist propaganda and Michael Moore is one many. That's just a fact.
Click to expand...

And politiicans are not God, or royality. They do not have support just for being. They act reckless and wrong, and free people can and rightly should speak out against them. And the mere fact that you see dissent as terrorist propaganda says more about how much you lean towards a communist train of thought than any war protester. And that is a real fact.
 
Boo Radley said:
You';re misinformed. That was not a declaration of war. it was a passing of the buck. It said, let Bush decide, and allowed congress to not be held accountable.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. They still gave their approval! How can they possibly approve what they did and complain later? George Bush was their President and their nation's leader and they allowed him to lead. They can't whine and renege later, That's just bad for the country.

I seriously believe people prefer to chart their own course and didn't want us doing it for them. Yes, that is what I believe.
Click to expand...

Sometimes people aren't given that option. They certainly weren't given such options under Communism.
Perhaps you should read up on the history of the war. Look up domino theory and how we saw that as a threat to the US (which would be the homeland).
Click to expand...

I know about the domino theory and it wasn't in reference to the American homeland.

You can't be fighting for our freedom if that freedom isn't threatened. You can't call VN a threat if they don't threaten us. Without those things, we had no business being there.
Click to expand...

The world isn't all that big and when an irrational political begins, leaving thousands in its wake, it must be stopped. It's useless to wait until they show up at your door, as well as immoral. And keep in mind that VN was a battle against Communism, and that was an international threat.
In Cuba.
Click to expand...

You talked of the "show of strength", not the location. This show was with the USSR, not Cuba.



No, passing the Buck and saying let Bush decide is not a declaration of war. Read Kerry's speech for example, where he clearly states Saddam did not reach the level of htreat that required invasion outside of the UN. The bill was not a declaration of war.
Click to expand...


Was that before or after he gave his approval?

And politiicans are not God, or royality. They do not have support just for being. They act reckless and wrong, and free people can and rightly should speak out against them. And the mere fact that you see dissent as terrorist propaganda says more about how much you lean towards a communist train of thought than any war protester. And that is a real fact.
Click to expand...

I don't mind dissent. Not at all. In fact I'm dissenting right now. But it depends a lot on what form this dissent takes. A lot of it is lies, and they are poison to any democracy..
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
It doesn't matter. They still gave their approval! How can they possibly approve what they did and complain later? George Bush was their President and their nation's leader and they allowed him to lead. They can't whine and renege later, That's just bad for the country.
Click to expand...

It does matter. Had they declared war, they would be responsible, and would have had to reach a proper standard. Instead, they took a cowardly route, and left it to the president, allowing him to take the heat. if you support Bush, this should not sit well with you.


Sometimes people aren't given that option. They certainly weren't given such options under Communism.
Click to expand...

And sometimes they openly choose something you wouldn't expect.

I know about the domino theory and it wasn't in reference to the American homeland.
Click to expand...

If it did not effect us, the homeland, there would be no reason to worry about it.



The world isn't all that big and when an irrational political begins, leaving thousands in its wake, it must be stopped. It's useless to wait until they show up at your door, as well as immoral. And keep in mind that VN was a battle against Communism, and that was an international threat.
Click to expand...

But we've never stopped any such thing. That wasn't going on in VN. In fact, the communist there had fought with us in WWII, and sought or aid to remove french rule.

And we certainly didn't stop Saddam while he was killing folks. Instead, we waited until it was over, after years of sanctions, and when the country was not facing such deaths to inflict war. As I often say, this was adding injury to injury.


You talked of the "show of strength", not the location. This show was with the USSR, not Cuba.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. The missles would have been in Cuba and not the US.






Was that before or after he gave his approval?
Click to expand...

He was explaining his vote right after he made the vote. He clearly stated that if Bush went outside the UN he would oppose him as Saddam did not present that type of threat.


I don't mind dissent. Not at all. In fact I'm dissenting right now. But it depends a lot on what form this dissent takes. A lot of it is lies, and they are poison to any democracy..
Click to expand...

While I do believe the lies of Bush, Beck, Limbaugh, Oberman, and Cheney are poisonous, I more concerned with teh lies some seem willing to swallow. Just because Bush says Iraq is a threat that requires war doesn't mean it is so. Nor does it mean anyone has to support his lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom