[quote]Actually, I respect you opinion, and I am sorry if I came off as accusatory or assuming, cuz that sure as hell wasn't the intent.. [/quote]
I see this as an attack hidden inside an "apology." It's also an attempt to save face, so apology not taken.
You trivialize my statements when you dismiss them as an opinion. You might as well erroneously accuse me of saying things for the sake of saying things. It goes to the saying, anybody has an "opinion" of something.
I threw facts and figures into the argument. When I did that, we were no longer talking opinions. The facts and figures just turned the comment into a reasoned argument.
[quote]I say "opinion" because it is well known that stats are open to interpetation, judegement, and we usually use information that we want to support our opinion and disregard info that dosen't support our position.[/quote]
I don't disagree with that notion, provided that you're talking about other information out there. One good example I could give you is the global warming alarmist arguments. Now THAT'S a perfect example of taking numbers and twisting them to say what you want them to say.
However, my argument doesn't just take numbers, which you failed to address. It also applies them to the discussion. They represent the lower end of the scale of what's going back out to the public... and what'll eventually go back into the economy over the next few months.
"Why are we in need of the rebates again to "stimulate" our economy AGAIN if Bush's initial rebates worked? Because it was TEMPORARY. It was never meant to be a long-term effect. It is supposed to stimulate economic growth by American's spending money they are given." -- Jenna Banks
I never claimed that his solution was permanent, that's what you're trying to pull here. When you say temporary, we're not talking about something that's going to last for years.
One of Bush's first actions once he came into the White House was to get tax rebates back to the public. Then he followed that up with tax cuts. The purpose of the rebates was to jump start the economy, like I stated earlier, with the lawn mower cord example.
The goal was to get the economy started. Once this happens, the tax cuts effects would have a stronger affect on propelling the economy ahead.
It's just like the lawnmower cord getting the lawnmower started. Pulling the chord was a temporary action. Once the lawnmower got started, you didn't have to constantly pull the chord. That's the government's attempts with the rebate... which is equivalent to the lawnmower chord.
It worked. The first tax rebates came out in the summer of 2001.
The economy is still growing, albeit at a slower rate. What you mistake as being a "recession" is our economy actually growing at a slower rate than what they'd want it to grow. It's still GROWING.
What year were we in during that debate? 2008.
The economy has been growing for YEARS! From 2002 to 2008. How many years is that? Five to six years isn't exactly "temporary" when you're dealing with economic growth and contraction.
The rebates are an attempt to arrest the slowdown in economic growth, not combat a recession.
"I highly doubt that with 1) A war that isn't supported by most of America that is depleating much of our funds , 2) the sub-prime lending crisis, and 3) rising gas prices that are sky high that the US government would be so stupid to believe that a few hundred bucks will solve the problem. That doesn't even make sense. I consider myself an optimist too, but c'mon. That is some wishful thinking." -- Jenna Banks
Your first point contradicts your earliest points. How could we be depleting funds if the government doesn't have that money in the first place? There goes the "giving money it didn't have in the first place" argument.
The Constitution specifically authorizes military spending. If congress didn't spend it on the military, it'd spend the money on other programs. It wouldn't be spending it on the economy.
That's the free market's job, not the government's.
The Revolutionary War was not a popular war either. The majority of the population didn't care who controlled the colonies, the United Kingdom, or a new U.S. Government. Add them to the loyalists, and you'll notice that the Patriots were in the minority.
Maybe we should've ran with what you're insinuating with the Iraq War... back when the patriots fought for our independence. Could you say, "God Save the Queen!" Better yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
The rising gas prices, the sub prime lending crises, and other crises that we may be going through right now are comparable to the economic crises we faced during the revolutionary war.
Heck, our own farmers refused to sell to the continental army. Congress passed bills allowing our continental army to seize assets from these farmers in exchange for worthless currency. Our own soldiers refused to reenlist with worthless American currency. French and Spanish currency motivated them to re-enlist though.
Here's the gravity of our economic situation back then. Foreign countries funded a large portion of the second part of our bid for independence.
A liberal economy helped us economically recover from the war. This allowed us to start paying our debts back.
The rebates attempt to bring us slightly closer to that. The idea is to allow the people to keep more of their money, and to spend it in the economy as they deem necessary.
This in tern would give the economy a boost.
Before you accuse me of wishful thinking, you need to consider what I previously said:
"Say the price for a loaf of bread is $1.09. Now, say that 1,000,000 people, who get the rebates, purchase that bread. That's over 1 million dollars right there that gets pumped back into the economy.
Whether they spend it little by little, or all at once, that's money that's going back to the economy. Take the 1,000,000 number, and multiply that by 300. That's $300,000,000 that's going back into the economy over the next few months.
But, not everybody is getting only $300 dollars. Some people are getting more. And there's allot more than 1,000,000 tax payers out there who'll be pumping that money back into the economy."
Do the math on that, and you'll see that we're not just talking "a few hundred dollars."
We're talking about allot more money than just $300,000,000 in taxes going back to the tax payers, to be returned to the economy.
This isn't wishful thinking, but looking at the numbers. It's also looking at how similar acts served us in the past.
"And thanks for the subtle Clinton bash, but that was unneccessary. Not all Liberals are Clinton lovers, but compared to our current resident idiot, I would take him any day. But that is just my opinion." -- Jenna Banks
It was as necessary as your subtle bash for the Iraq War in your first post.
I've found a trend among the liberals that I've debated against. You know what I noticed from most people that bash President Bush? They're the same ones that talk with pride about Clinton, and "his," economy.
You say that you'd take Clinton over him? Do realize that Clinton was one of the most incompetent commander in chief's this country has had. He missed some good opportunities to take Bin Laden out.
Bin Laden expected "business as usual" with the 9/11 attacks. He expected us to pull a Clinton. Unfortunately for Al Qaeda, serving court papers in response to an attack isn't Bush's style.
"What is so bad about this? If you benefit from our capitalistic system more and profit more, why not give back more to the Nation who gave you the opportunity to do well? It is also said that the top 10% of America's wealthy people account for 70% of our nations wealth. Do I or others who are middle class feel bad that you pay more? HELL NO. The superrich can spare a little change. What is the alternative anyway? Have everyone pay the same amount or precentage? Taxes are on land, businesses and personal wealth, the more you have, the more there is to be taxed. The rich will always pay more because they have more. How does that not make sense?" -- Jenna Banks
First, I'm not complaining about the rich paying more taxes. Your misunderstanding of my intent resulted in you backing what I said, in detail.
However; my side of the argument opposes the rich and supper rich being forced to pay, even more than their fair share. Your statement embraces a solution that requires squeezing more money from the rich.
And you accuse me of being "good" at "missing" a "point."
Second, there's a better solution to our tax system. It's fair across the board, and would collect more money for the government. I'll talk about that later.
Third, thank you for proving my point against your argument.
Go back and read the entire post, and see WHY I used that comment. I'm NOT arguing the fairness or lack of fairness of the fact that the wealthy pay more in taxes than everybody else.
Here's why I brought that point up.
Your side of the argument argued that the government is spending money that it "doesn't have." You guys argue that these tax rebates are from money the government "doesn't" have.
I responded to that with a valid point. The government is collecting taxes from the population, and turning around and returning a portion of that as tax rebates.
By admitting this: "If you benefit from our capitalistic system more and profit more, why not give back more to the Nation who gave you the opportunity to do well?"
You destroy your argument that the government is giving out money that it "doesn't" have in the first place.
"I would comment on your other comments, but I would just be beating a number of already beaten horses. -- Jenna
The more you would've addressed, the more of your comments I would've dismantled.
You're addressing what you think are my "weakest" arguments, and avoiding the rest. You need to see why I say certain things before insinuating that I'm complaining about something else.
No comments:
Post a Comment