Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News The Debate question I would have asked

  1. Oct 9, 2004 #1


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 9, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  4. Oct 9, 2004 #3
    Kerry said he wouldn't raise taxes? He specificallt stated he would raise taxes on those making over 200k....or did I miss something.
  5. Oct 9, 2004 #4
    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.
  6. Oct 9, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
  7. Oct 9, 2004 #6
    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.
  8. Oct 9, 2004 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2004
  9. Oct 9, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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?
  10. Oct 9, 2004 #9
    Email that question to Bill O'Reilly, I heard him say Kerry was going to be on his show, and O'Reilly definately wouldn't be averse to asking a question like that.
  11. Oct 9, 2004 #10
    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."
  12. Oct 9, 2004 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Better yet, he can also say he's sticking it to the evil rich people.
  13. Oct 9, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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 :rofl: They asked him a question, and he started to go into the usual canned campaign speech, and Barbara Walters, you gotta 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!
  14. Oct 10, 2004 #13
    That just shows that you have a misconception of what liberals think.
  15. Oct 10, 2004 #14
    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.
  16. Oct 10, 2004 #15
    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.
  17. Oct 10, 2004 #16

    No it doesn't. It says the he's aware of what so many liberals use as campaign rhetoric.
  18. Oct 10, 2004 #17
    I think that he should leave such stupid word selection as "evil" to dumbos such as Bush.
  19. Oct 10, 2004 #18
    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.
  20. Oct 10, 2004 #19
    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
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2004
  21. Oct 10, 2004 #20
    Only page 2 and this has already devolved into sarcasm and conspiracy theorist rhetoric. How sad :(
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook