YO YO YO Democrats turn to rap to get the youth vote

[mrsleeve]

Since you're making the argument, it's on you to back your statements up. This is the absolute most basic expectation in any debate.

While I dont disagree with this principal, I am just too lazy to dig up and online source, and since I am no where near 90% of my books on such topics I cant just reach over to cite it.

If you want to call BS and substantiate it thats fine, dont say I didnt tell you latter on down the line after you stumble across it some time.


I dont see you providing any counter arguments and links to refute my claims. Oh yeah when you start looking for such things you will find out I am right.

[ck_taft325is]

Since you're making the argument, it's on you to back your statements up. This is the absolute most basic expectation in any debate.

Actually Mr. Logical, "Kansas" claimed that FDR pulled America out of the depression and did not provide any factual references, ect. While refuting should have some form of "No, here's something you should look at (enter reference/source)", neither of them gave facts, sources, ect. So really, they're debating on the same "level". Much as you'd like to just pick out one side and distract from the subject, you yourself mostly just end up looking like a self-righteous "tattle tale" when you contribute absolutely nothing.

Kansas, I agree that the stimilus, if it "had" to be done, should have been actually alocated. I disagree that the stimilus, had it be larger, would have genuinely helped anyone in the long run. How does this money get recouped? Taxation. Usually without much representation. And while taxing the rich sounds like a good idea, they write a lot of checks 9 times out 10. While they can be cheap asses, (very cheap) the Government deciding to spend gobs of cash we don't have doesn't justify taking from them. More often than not, this doesn't even genuinely hurt the super wealthy as many have pointed out but failed to see that it actually, nearly always, hurts the lower end trying to work their way into a better life. That would be, you, Sleeve, Brave, z31, myself, ect. Even if you don't believe in trickle down I'd emplore you to look at this fact: When the wealthy get taxed at a huge rate, the lower-middle class suffers. This has less to do with the "wealthy, rich guy" screwing everyone else and more about the way life is. I don't disagree that it would be nice if taxes only fell on those that could pay them, much as they do now, but in general, I'd rather we all just people with minimal taxation.

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes hence my point, that you tax my boss too much hes gonna cut back on taking risk and trying to make more money. That hurts me by not having as much work to do, or get laid off all together. I made that point and when this happens on a grand scale its a economy killer

[Kansas]

Do you try to negotiate with the guy wanting to kill you or ask him if he was not loved as a child???? Talking to a Crazy man will get you nothing but crazy.

Man, you're out there. Did you even read what I wrote? Look, normally you don't break diplomatic relations with a country unless you're going to war with them. We're not at war with Iran, in fact, we're trying to talk them out of building nukes. Not having direct diplomatic relations with them just complicates that. Means we have to go jump through hoops at the UN to work out anything with Iran.

But as I said, there likely wouldn't be much of anything gained in the short-term, because plenty of Iranians still hate us for fucking over their country for the better part of the 20th century. Long term there's plenty of oil and refining infrastructure money we could get in on, but no one in the US really thinks long term so it doesn't matter.

... (the depression) did not drag on for 10 years in the rest of the world like it did in the states hence the "Great" part is an American thing.

Uh, Germany?

Books, try reading some, other than the those written by Progressives, with and agenda to push.

You mean just about every single textbook or source on US history in existence? Let's go back to basics here:
http://www.quia.com/files/quia/users...f-the-New-Deal
Notice the spike in unemployment and business failures in 1937-38? That's when FDR decided to listen to the Supreme Court and conservatives, cut programs, cut spending and try to balance the budget.

I suspect you will do no more research, however, because it will contrast your idealistic views that govt will solve all problems.

You cite a couple UCLA professors who put out one study (that flies in the face of just about every other source on the subject) and then accuse others of hunting for self-serving sources? If that's how it is, here's a fun article:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7076

Kansas, I agree that the stimilus, if it "had" to be done, should have been actually alocated. I disagree that the stimilus, had it be larger, would have genuinely helped anyone in the long run.

Why? By increasing spending the government can bolster demand and help preserve jobs, which helps stop the economic contraction. Yes, that money has to be recouped, but that is more quickly done if the economy is still intact.

Even if you don't believe in trickle down I'd emplore you to look at this fact: When the wealthy get taxed at a huge rate, the lower-middle class suffers. This has less to do with the "wealthy, rich guy" screwing everyone else and more about the way life is. I don't disagree that it would be nice if taxes only fell on those that could pay them, much as they do now, but in general, I'd rather we all just people with minimal taxation.

I think that trickle-down economics, supply side economics, horse and sparrow, reaganomics, whatever you like to call it is little more than a lie. And the top 1-2% are laughing all the way to the bank at how many of us have bought it. Arguably the most prosperous time in our nation's history ('40s-'60s) also saw the highest top marginal tax rates.