News The Debate question I would have asked

[selfAdjoint]

Here's your opportunity to play interrogator as the audience members did at the Saint Louis debate.

This is my question, for Kerry.

Many good economists say that the Bush administration's combination of tax cuts and spending has set us up for spiralling debt and inflation in the years to come. They say that fixes short of increased revenue won't stop it. Senator, my question to you is, when you say you will not raise taxes, do you mean you expect history to kindly arrange itself so you don't have to? Or do you mean that you will refuse to raise taxes even when that is clearly required in the best interests of the country?

 

[russ_watters]

There is a third possibility - drastically cut spending by slashing the military and stretching it thinner than it already is and ending social security and medicare.

No, politicians don't like to answer questions when none of the possible answers (that would actually fix the problem) are desirable.

 

[member 5645]

Kerry said he wouldn't raise taxes? He specificallt stated he would raise taxes on those making over 200k...or did I miss something.

 

[check]

Kerry said he wouldn't raise taxes? He specificallt stated he would raise taxes on those making over 200k...or did I miss something.

I'm pretty sure his no raising taxes message was directed at the middle class. He also stated that the Bush tax cut for the wealthy would be 'rolled back' to what it was like before the Bush tax cut. So yeah, that is technically raising taxes on the wealthy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

And deLong and other economists have calculated that that rollback from the rich will not be enough to stem the bad things that are coming. Months ago they estimated that an across the board tax raise would be needed, if the catastrophe they saw was to be stopped.

And yes, I should have put "under $200,000" into my question.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm pretty sure his no raising taxes message was directed at the middle class. He also stated that the Bush tax cut for the wealthy would be 'rolled back' to what it was like before the Bush tax cut. So yeah, that is technically raising taxes on the wealthy.

Technically, a tax roll-back would be equivalent to a tax increase for the wealthy.

However, politically he can pretend that it is not a tax increase.

Remember, politicians can lie with impunity if they can pretend that there is even a theoretical way to consider it the truth.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

To narrow it down to one question is not an easy task, but as of today my question would be: Mr. President, you have sworn that the defense of this nation is your first concern. Considering that no one can know what threats to our security may lie ahead, and considering that we can't envision pulling out of Iraq any time soon, and considering that our forces are already stretched dangerously thin, and considering the unfair burden placed on the families of and the servicemen and women who fight your war in Iraq today, may we assume that your promise to "never re-instate the draft while President" is really just an empty promise made in light of the fact that you will never have to answer to the voters for breaking this promise?


This is the key people. Cheney can't run for office again [age and health] and Bush won't, so no one is liable for claims made. Bush can say anything he wants. Even if elected, he will never have to answer for any of it. Consider the tremendous advantage this gives Bush over Kerry. Both Kerry and Edwards must answer for their actions. Unless this nation comes to its senses, Bush never will.

 

[BobG]

Mr. President, about 28% of the Army National Guard has been activated, some serving in Iraq, most filling stateside jobs away from their home state in place of active duty members serving overseas. Since the National Guard often responds to major events in the US, does this weaken our ability to rapidly respond to terrorist attacks in the US?

 

[wasteofo2]

Here's your opportunity to play interrogator as the audience members did at the Saint Louis debate.

This is my question, for Kerry.

Many good economists say that the Bush administration's combination of tax cuts and spending has set us up for spiralling debt and inflation in the years to come. They say that fixes short of increased revenue won't stop it. Senator, my question to you is, when you say you will not raise taxes, do you mean you expect history to kindly arrange itself so you don't have to? Or do you mean that you will refuse to raise taxes even when that is clearly required in the best interests of the country?

Email that question to Bill O'Reilly, I heard him say Kerry was going to be on his show, and O'Reilly definitely wouldn't be averse to asking a question like that.

 

[wasteofo2]

Mr. President, about 28% of the Army National Guard has been activated, some serving in Iraq, most filling stateside jobs away from their home state in place of active duty members serving overseas. Since the National Guard often responds to major events in the US, does this weaken our ability to rapidly respond to terrorist attacks in the US?

I think Bush's simple, clear, resolute, answer to that would be "No, it doesn't, it's as simple as that. We can respond to terrorist attacks at home fine."

 

[russ_watters]

Technically, a tax roll-back would be equivalent to a tax increase for the wealthy.

However, politically he can pretend that it is not a tax increase.

Remember, politicians can lie with impunity if they can pretend that there is even a theoretical way to consider it the truth.

Better yet, he can also say he's sticking it to the evil rich people.

 

[Moonbear]

Oh, it really doesn't matter what questions you ask either of them, they don't actually answer the questions anyway. The questions serve more as a general guideline of which topic they should repeat from their campaign speeches.

Though, I caught Edwards on The View! I have new respect for his bravery to appear on that show They asked him a question, and he started to go into the usual canned campaign speech, and Barbara Walters, you got to love her, cut him right off and told him that wasn't answering the question she asked, and repeated the question and made it clear that's the one she wanted answered. We need more people like her interviewing these candidates!

 

[Dissident Dan]

Better yet, he can also say he's sticking it to the evil rich people.

That just shows that you have a misconception of what liberals think.

 

[wasteofo2]

Better yet, he can also say he's sticking it to the evil rich people.

Far be it from someone to suggest that the people who make the largest % of the national income should pay a larger % of the national income tax. They are, afterall, superior to everyone else.

 

[HAVOC451]

That just shows that you have a misconception of what liberals think.

It also suggests that the good Mr. Waters does not realize that the tax burdon on the upper quintile has been dropping for more than twenty years. At the same time, the third and fourth quintiles have picked up the slack.

 

[member 5645]

That just shows that you have a misconception of what liberals think.

No it doesn't. It says the he's aware of what so many liberals use as campaign rhetoric.

 

[Prometheus]

Better yet, he can also say he's sticking it to the evil rich people.

I think that he should leave such stupid word selection as "evil" to dumbos such as Bush.

 

[Prometheus]

To narrow it down to one question is not an easy task, but as of today my question would be: Mr. President, you have sworn that the defense of this nation is your first concern. Considering that no one can know what threats to our security may lie ahead, and considering that we can't envision pulling out of Iraq any time soon, and considering that our forces are already stretched dangerously thin, and considering the unfair burden placed on the families of and the servicemen and women who fight your war in Iraq today, may we assume that your promise to "never re-instate the draft while President" is really just an empty promise made in light of the fact that you will never have to answer to the voters for breaking this promise?

I know what you are really trying to do. You don't want or expect an answer to this question. You are simply trying to fluster Bush because you know that he could never follow a question with so many words particularly when some of them are over three letters long. If you were really serious about asking him a question, you would think of Bush and not only yourself. Maybe you are part of the axis of evil.

 

[omin]

There are two general ways to improve the economy of any people:

1. Export, which means working our resources then exporting them, or

2. Stealing resources from others.

Both candidates, I see you both approve of American laziness and murdering Iraqis for atleast four more years to get there oil. Criminal theories are inferior in economics, domestic policy and in international policy, because they are less efficient for the humans species, especially in light of power that humans have access to via chemisty and physics. These are not the days of genecide that will bring a continent of resources under the control of an invading army. Those days are long gone.

What kind of example do think you'll set for world economy by doing this and do you really think murder and theft is a better theory that diplomacy and trade although it defies the laws of physics of the economy and state of world today?

-Action speaks louder than words. Let me demstrate.

Action: Civilian Iraqis are the ones murdered by the America war operations.

Words: Operation: Freedom

 

[member 5645]

Only page 2 and this has already devolved into sarcasm and conspiracy theorist rhetoric. How sad :(

 

[kat]

Only page 2 and this has already devolved into sarcasm and conspiracy theorist rhetoric. How sad :(

I was thinking idiocy, but I think your reply is more diplomatic.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nazis, nazis, nazis, Hitler!

There!

 

[Janitor]

A question for either candidate: Do you honestly believe that able-bodied people should get benefits such as food stamps and subsidized housing, by the government's removal of money from the paychecks of honest working people? And if your answer is 'Yes, and I plan to continue those programs,' what will you do to catch those people who, by the current standards of eligibility, are illegally milking the system?

 

[russ_watters]

That just shows that you have a misconception of what liberals think.

Uh huh. I watched the DNC, and I've participated in quite a few rich-bashing threads here. Did you see Clinton's speech? It may have been satirical and self-deprecating (it really was a good speech), but it most certainly was rich-bashing.

Far be it from someone to suggest that the people who make the largest % of the national income should pay a larger % of the national income tax.

Have you looked at a tax table lately? They already do pay by far the largest proportion of the taxes! (caveat - I'm in favor of tightening-up on deductions - but that knife cuts both ways). That's the entire problem with the bash-the-rich argument - its based on the erroneous perception that they aren't paying their fair share.

I think that he should leave such stupid word selection as "evil" to dumbos such as Bush.

Fair enough. Is "greedy" better?

 

[wasteofo2]

Have you looked at a tax table lately? They already do pay by far the largest proportion of the taxes! (caveat - I'm in favor of tightening-up on deductions - but that knife cuts both ways). That's the entire problem with the bash-the-rich argument - its based on the erroneous perception that they aren't paying their fair share.

Someone made a post saying that Kerry could say that he wasn't really raising taxes on those who make $200,000 or more a year, just rolling them back. You responded by saying he could just say that he's sticking it to the evil rich people. I then sarcastically said that he would just tax the people who make the largest % of the national income more.

The top tax bracket earns a much larger % of the total national income than they pay in taxes. In my view, the income tax should be directly proportional to the % of the total national income that your tax bracket makes, it currently isn't.

 

[russ_watters]

The top tax bracket earns a much larger % of the total national income than they pay in taxes. In my view, the income tax should be directly proportional to the % of the total national income that your tax bracket makes, it currently isn't.

I'm pretty sure you have that backwards. What you suggest sounds like a flat tax instead of the progressive tax we have now. I need to go back and look at those numbers again though (we had a similar discussion a few months ago and I had some numbers wrong...). I'll get back with some data (though the difficulty may be in what constitutes "income"). For reference though, http://www.fairmark.com/refrence/index.htm are this year's brackets.

 

[BobG]

A question for either candidate: Do you honestly believe that able-bodied people should get benefits such as food stamps and subsidized housing, by the government's removal of money from the paychecks of honest working people? And if your answer is 'Yes, and I plan to continue those programs,' what will you do to catch those people who, by the current standards of eligibility, are illegally milking the system?

First off, welfare, food stamps, etc are a temporary subsidy for most recipients, even if about half the funds tend to be given to long term recipients.

While I don't disagree with the idea of food stamps, subsidized housing, and so on, the amount recipients receive should lower over time along with concurrent programs to move them off of government subsidies into self-sufficiencly.

The revisions to welfare in the 90's requiring mandatory subsidized training (college, vocational, etc) or face a cut-off or reduction in benefits was a good move. I think the biggest problem encountered was the availability of subsidized loans with little counseling on the effects of borrowing as much as they were eligible for. Even so, I don't think the overwhelming majority are better off than before they started and they're not living off the government anymore. There should be very few (even fewer than there are now) long term recipients.

 

[Gokul43201]

The top tax bracket earns a much larger % of the total national income than they pay in taxes.

No, wo2, that's not right. They do pay a greater % of the taxes than the % of total income...albeit, a significantly smaller fraction than before Reagan's time.

 

[Ba]

How about asking either canidate about the Patriot Act, the horror of libraries and other public offices, or even better use the act to get all the books that either canidates have read lately and ask them questions about their reading material. (The only problem would be that Bush might not read anything but his speeches)

 

[Janitor]

... or face a cut-off or reduction in benefits ...

The most recent story I heard on talk radio was a caller who said his cousin in another state had been getting food stamps. She now has a job paying her $13-something an hour, and he says she should no longer be eligible for the stamps, but she keeps on getting them. I didn't catch whether he said she deliberately hid her income, or whether it was a matter of bureaucratic incompetence. (Do the walfare agencies rely on their 'customers' to report the fact that they are no longer eligible for benefits?)

I heard another story some years ago. A middle-aged fellow wanted to return to college to get a more advanced degree and get into teaching. Before his first semester he filled out his paperwork at the college. He told the secretary at the Baptist (!) college that it looked like he would not be eligible for a grant (if I am remembering the right terminology), because he had earned too much income the previous year. The secretary told him something like, "Oh, just go ahead and fill in the box with an amount smaller than" whatever the limiting income was. He asked her, "Won't they catch that in an audit?" Her reply, which says it all about the evils of big government, was: "No, the government leaves it up to the school to do the audit."

 

[BobG]

I heard another story some years ago. A middle-aged fellow wanted to return to college to get a more advanced degree and get into teaching. Before his first semester he filled out his paperwork at the college. He told the secretary at the Baptist (!) college that it looked like he would not be eligible for a grant (if I am remembering the right terminology), because he had earned too much income the previous year. The secretary told him something like, "Oh, just go ahead and fill in the box with an amount smaller than" whatever the limiting income was. He asked her, "Won't they catch that in an audit?" Her reply, which says it all about the evils of big government, was: "No, the government leaves it up to the school to do the audit."

Wow, I had a similar experience. I was pretty sure I didn't qualify for Federal grants and didn't. I figured I probably wouldn't qualify for State, either, but they said to fill out the paper work, anyway, it wouldn't hurt. First the State sent me $250 - I just figured I must have been tacked on as whoever's left with whatever's left. At the end of the semester, they sent me another check for about $800. That one has me wondering. With a daughter in college, I know it raises my financial need, but I'm a little worried about getting nearly 100% of my tuition paid for when I didn't qualify for any Federal aid. I'm still waiting for them to come haul me off to jail (or at least ask for their money back).

Maybe I should take a little reassurance from the secretary's last comment? Or better yet, maybe I should take a heavier schedule.

 

[Janitor]

...
Maybe I should take a little reassurance from the secretary's last comment? Or better yet, maybe I should take a heavier schedule...

Or maybe the both of us should start voting Libertarian, or whichever party favors smaller government that doesn't try to do so much social engineering via redistribution of citizens' money?

 

[HAVOC451]

Some good reading on the Bush tax cuts and income distribution in the USA.
http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm

The top one percent will gain by far the most from the tax cuts even though it has already been the main beneficiary of income trends since the 1970s. Data from a separate CBO study, released in April of this year, indicate that between 1979 and 2001 (the latest year CBO examined), the average after-tax income of the top one percent of households rose by a stunning $409,000, or 139 percent, after adjusting for inflation.[1] This dwarfed the $6,300, or 17 percent, average increase among the middle fifth of the population, over this 22-year period, and the $1,100, or 8 percent, increase among the bottom fifth of the population.

Here is another article with lots of nice http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_income_taxation.htm

Clearly, the upper quintile receives the greatest benifit while the third and fourth quintile bears the greatest burdon.

 

[russ_watters]

HAVOC, that quote is interesting because the data they use to back up their point has nothing at all to do with their point. If they want to show that taxes affect income inequality, they have to track the tax rate next to the income gap. Or are they claiming that taxes should be a putative effort to reduce income inequality?

The top one percent will gain by far the most from the tax cuts...

True - and uselessly self-evident (pointless).

edit: ok, its self-evident but I know people will miss it so I'll clarify: if you make $2 and I make $1 and the government takes half, that's $1 from you and $.5 from me. If I change that rate to 25%, you can reasonably say both:
-You benefited more than I did.
-We both benefited exactly the same.

...even though it has already been the main beneficiary of income trends since the 1970s.

Also true...and what does that have to do with the rich benefiting from tax cuts?

I know there is a name for this logical fallacy, but I can't remember what right now. The goal is to stick a lot of unrelated facts together and draw a spurious conclusion from them. The fallacy comes from people seeing that the facts are true and assuming that that means they support the conlcusion even if they are completely unrelated to it.

 

[Moonbear]

edit: ok, its self-evident but I know people will miss it so I'll clarify: if you make $2 and I make $1 and the government takes half, that's $1 from you and $.5 from me. If I change that rate to 25%, you can reasonably say both:
-You benefited more than I did.
-We both benefited exactly the same. Also true...and what does that have to do with the rich benefiting from tax cuts?

I'm glad you brought this up, because a LOT of people miss this point. The politicians use this to their advantage. This is why you hear both candidates say what sounds like completely opposite statements, and neither is lying. You can take the same data and come up with two completely different conclusions. This is why politics both frustrates and fascinates me!

I know there is a name for this logical fallacy, but I can't remember what right now. The goal is to stick a lot of unrelated facts together and draw a spurious conclusion from them. The fallacy comes from people seeing that the facts are true and assuming that that means they support the conlcusion even if they are completely unrelated to it.

Non sequitur? Or were you thinking of some other name? There were a lot of those in the debate last night. Read the transcript...it's painful.