12 replies to this topic

[redlion]

Lend me your aid!

I got into a four hour debate with my boss on Wednesday night. He is the staunchest conservative I think I've ever met in person. (people on the internet are not real). We got into it on a variety of topics, including the Iraq war, the economy, Israel, taxes, and various other things, and we each promised to bring factual evidence for the other to view on Monday or Wednesday next. What I need from you is this: bring out your guns!

I need factual evidence supporting the following. Anything you've got please.

• The WMD lie about the Iraq War. Any justification used by the Bush administration to invade Iraq that was false or tampered with.
• The failed invasion of Afghanistan. Anything relating to the abysmal amount of troops committed to the invasion, the numerous generals that have spoken out, anything.
• The Israeli power struggle. Anything related to Israeli human rights abuses, and the U.N. decrees against them.
• The economic failure of the Bush administration. If you know anything about the Fed and interest rates, you know that lowing the interest rates falsely represents the value of the market. Prove it.
• Tax theory. Deficit spending decreases the value of the American dollar, and screws not only the poor, but the middle class like my boss that argue for it. Prove it.

If you have input on any of the following, please site with a bit of a summary. No need to give a book report, just a one liner.

I intend for this to be a resource for democratic party members in the upcoming elections, and for anyone that doesn't understand the democratic viewpoint. I'll be posting my own findings as well, so don't think you're slaving while I sit back

[pyke]

Your boss didn't fire you for debating while working?

http://www.americanp...aimfact1029.htm

I think you'll like this site.

[Sweeney]

Your boss didn't fire you for debating while working?

Would he not then have had to fire himself also?

[Cory]

You won't find factual evidence on a few of those issues. =s Most of it is opinions to which is why we debate.

People could easily debate that the economical failure of bush was the result of the Clinton administration, not personally saying it is but many believe so.

Tell your boss to stop arguing with a teenager and do some work, imo.

[pyke]

Would he not then have had to fire himself also?

It's the boss. Generally, they get to fire you for any/no reason.

[redlion]

This was after hours.

I figured I wouldn't get support for some of these, and that I'd have to look it up myself, but any little bit helps.

[Shadiel]

People could easily debate that the economical failure of bush was the result of the Clinton administration, not personally saying it is but many believe so.

I've heard the asinine statement that Clinton was just 'riding the wave' that Reagan and Bush set up for him.
I lol'd for like ten minutes and walked away.

Edited by Shadiel, 17 February 2008 - 08:29 PM.

[Hater_Boxden]

Im rooting for your boss, what is his email so I can send him information?

[redlion]

Deficit Spending

Alright, a little bit about deficit spending. Everyone knows that magic phrase 'balanced budget', but what does that really mean? Basically, it means the federal government brings enough money in through tax revenue that it doesn't have to borrow money to pay for its programs. Normally, the majority of economists believe that deficit spending is bad for the economy, except in cases of recession or depression. Its been noted that Hoover screwed the nation by failing to use deficit spending, and threw the country under the bus in the early 1930s, sinking deeper into the great depression. Similarly, deficit spending during periods of great economic success (where the unemployment rate is low and inflation is growing) can destroy an economy, as in the Vietnam era, when deficit spending caused inflation to skyrocket.

Generally what this means is, deficit spending during recession is good for the economy, while deficit spending during economic boom periods is bad for the economy.

The only president in 40 years to balance the budget (literally, since Eisenhower in 1958) Was Bill Clinton, in his last four years in office (with liberal amounts of help from the Republican Congress*). The intervening years saw a variety of presidents relying not on tax dollars, but on borrowing to pay for programs, culminating with Bush Jr., who slashed taxes to the point that 32% of spending was paid for by borrowing. This is the highest it has ever been. Ever.

Let me remind you that these are not figures, but percentages. These are not 10$, 20$, 10,000$, but percentages, comparable over time. I invite you to look at This Graph or the textual representation on This Page for further analysis.

Normally, deficit spending is used to make up for the failure of the economy to work well. (Read: When our economy collapses, we need the government to spend money.) However, as the data clearly shows, our economic growth was superb until 2001. The blame for this failure can be attributed to a variety of sources, namely, 9/11 and the subsequent death of the airlines, the Bush Tax cuts, the Clinton administration (?) and various other sources. Regardless, the graphs are clear. When you look at GDP percent change over time, Clinton had consistently higher GDP changes (adjusted) than Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. See This data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis for more information.

Now, whether or not you want to chalk the GDP data success up to actual policy, or to the fates, is up to you. I, however, like to think that the decisions of the Federal Reserve and the President determine a good portion of economic growth in the United States.

The analysis points to one conclusion: decreasing deficit spending during periods of economic growth is good, and increases GDP, while increasing it is bad, and decreases GDP. You need only to look back over the analysis to see which presidents took which path to deficit spending.

*This point is debatable. Even though the Republican party took control of the house in 1996, deficit spending had already been decreasing significantly under Clinton from the time he took office in 1992 until 1996. Check the graph Here for statistical conformation.

[sonic]

The war?

Tell him to talk to a soldier that has been to Iraq. Ask if we are doing anything good. If they have half a brain they will say, it is doing nothing but harm.....Hell I will talk to him for you. I have seen it for myself. I killed bad guys. It helped nothing.

[Amagius]

The war?

Tell him to talk to a soldier that has been to Iraq. Ask if we are doing anything good. If they have half a brain they will say, it is doing nothing but harm.....Hell I will talk to him for you. I have seen it for myself. I killed bad guys. It helped nothing.

Very poignant message.

Also, redlion, really good summarization of the economic situation in the U.S., at least on the point of government borrowing.

[redlion]

Tax and Tax Plans

Alright, so last time I talked a little bit about deficit spending, which is the alternative to taxation for government revenue. Taxation, simply put, is a lean taken from earnings, revenue, income, sales, or estate change that funds the federal government. The tax most people are familiar with is the Federal Income Tax. We'll use it as an example, although I might branch out into corporate tax plans as well.

First of all, who pays? Federal income taxes are broken down into brackets, with the poorest brackets paying the least percentage, while the richest brackets pay the most. Further, there are three main ways to measure FIT: regular, Form 8615, and Schedule D. Essentially, poor and lower middle class file regular, middle and upper middle file Form 8615, and upper and ultra classes file Schedule D.

In 1999, the percentage of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) payed by each group was thus:

regular - 12.6%
Form 8615 - 21.0%
Schedule D - 20.1%

In 2001, the percentages of AGI changed to the following:

regular - 13.4%
Form 8615 - 21.8%
Schedule D - 19.3%

Further, in 2005, the changes were even greater:

regular - 9.3%
Form 8615 - 18.5%
Schedule D - 17.5%

That makes for percentage changes over time in the amount of:

regular - 3.3%
Form 8615 - 2.5%
Schedule D - 2.6%

Why is that the highest earning class of taxpayers is receiving the second highest percentage tax cut? I see no reason why the tax cuts should not reflect the earnings of the citizens.

Source. In specific, I used 1999, 2001 and 2005 datasheets from the IRS.

Consider the following Resource. The first paragraph deserves a quote

As a result of the three major tax cuts enacted at President Bush’s instigation in 2001, 2002 and 2003, taxes on the best-off one percent of Americans will fall by 17 percent by the end of this decade. For the remaining 99 percent of taxpayers, the average tax reduction will be 5 percent.

In addition, the graphical representation is particularly poignant. Check out the tables at the end of page two for more details. (I've copied it here for convenience)

So, while it marginally decreases the amount that the second lowest 20% are paying, The only other tax breaks go to the top 1% of the nation. The share that middle class citizens have to pay then increases. How does the Republican party help anyone besides the top 1% here? They don't.

Follow my math.

Federal Income Tax Revenues 2001 compared to 2005
$953,166,137 - $876,880,036 = $76,286,101
8.699% increase in FIT revenues

Adjusted Gross Income of Individual Citizens 2001 to 2005
$7,041,813,031 - $5,975,324,879 = $1,066,488,152
17.848% increase in Adjusted Gross Income of Individuals

So my assumption, based on the data, is that, given that tax levels had increased at a rate comparable to the AGI of citizens, we would have, as a government, not an increase of $76,286,101, but an increase of federal revenue in the amount of $152,572,202. More government revenue would bolster our national debt, essentially sitting at $9.2 trillion (that would be $9,200,000,000,000), and could help to fund the two wars we find ourselves hosting. That kind of money is needed in a time like this, yet President Bush's tax plan allows for the top tiers of the taxable populace to pay less taxes.

Conclusion: based on this analysis, it is clear that the huge federal deficit (and subsequent national debt), the problems finding funding for key programs like education, armour for Humvees in Iraq, and relief for the strained economy are not due to the terrorists, but the President's tax plans.

Dammit, where is simon when I need his anti Israel rhetoric.

*sigh* I suppose that since no one else can even post up a link like Pyke, I'll have to search them myself. I wasn't asking for position papers (or even a page summation like I posted) but just a source and a one liner for me to read. You guys are lazier than /b/

[Ives]

The idea would be to cut out most programs and luxuries the government has, and then slowly phase out the income tax and move most of the burden on sales tax. Given the many illegal industries, this would allow for a reasonable amount of money from spending to be put directly towards America's debt. When it gets paid off, lower the taxes as much as possible and keep it fixed. Legalize said industries through constitutional amendments and such "sin taxes" (ie rational addiction) could be placed, though not as bad as cigarette smoking is right now because the income source would be more evenly distributed from various products. That's all I can really suggest. I have no scientific data backing me, and for that I'm idealistic and wrong as fuck, but I think its worth a try. People shouldnt have to pay high taxes, whether its a progressive tax or not isnt really the solution.

Edited by Athean, 18 February 2008 - 08:59 PM.