Opposition to gay marriage is not equivalent of racism

Reasons to agree:

1. Racism is hatred of those that are different. You can't assume that those who feel that our country will be benefited by opposing gay marriage or motivated by hate. 


2. Not all people who oppose gay marriage are bad people, but all racist are bad people. 


3. Victims of racism and homophobia experience similar treatment, but from a political standpoint you can't just say that because one form of discrimination was bad, that all forms of discrimination is bad. Some forms of discrimination are good. It is good to discriminate against people who do bad things. We may disagree about what is a bad activity, but we will all agree that some activities should be discouraged... I know, I know what you want me to do... you want me to give an example of a very bad activity, and then you will scream at me and say how dare I compare being gay to doing that bad activity, and I will say, I wasn't comparing the two, I was just using an extreme example to prove my point, but no matter how much I win the logical debate, you will win the emotional debate, where it appeared that I was comparing being gay to doing this bad thing, which was not my intention. I have no problem with you being gay. I have no problem with gay marriage, really. But I want to play peace maker, and tell gay people that all supporters of DOMA are not bigots. 

Reasons to disagree:

1. (Leave a comment, and I'll add your argument)

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)


2. Confirmation bias (you decide that you don't like Obama, and so this becomes the prism that you see him. People always root for the home team, because over time they start to show interest, and then each new story tells them they were correct. When the other team acts badly, you get mad. When your team acts badly, you feel justified. You continue to identify with Obama, because you once did). 


3. Your a Republican. He is on the other team. He is the enemy. 


4. Party Affiliation Group-ism (Republican). 


5. Racism.


6. Political laziness and issue crossover (15%)

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)


2. Pro black racial preference


3. Liberal guilt (environment).


4. Liberal guilt (race). 


5. Party Affiliation Group-ism (Democratic). 


6. The desire to promote more positive role models for our black youth


7. Self Interest.


8. Political laziness and issue crossover (15%)

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 3

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 3

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Usually compassion is not a limitless resource

Reasons to agree:

1. When you give money to try and help ex-cons get a job, someone else will not get that job. Maybe they will get another job, but at least some of the times the person that didn't get the job needed it more. 


2. Even your ability to be kind is a resource. Maybe not little things like saying thank you, and stuff, but everyone has limited time in a day. 


3. You can show compassion, but when you are in debt, your only responsibility is to get out of debt. 

Reasons to disagree:

1. Sometimes you can show compassion, when it doesn't involve money, that helps people, but won't hurt anyone else. 

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)


2. Confirmation bias (you decide that you don't like Obama, and so this becomes the prism that you see him. People always root for the home team, because over time they start to show interest, and then each new story tells them they were correct. When the other team acts badly, you get mad. When your team acts badly, you feel justified. You continue to identify with Obama, because you once did). 


3. Your a Republican. He is on the other team. He is the enemy. 


4. Party Affiliation Group-ism (Republican). 


5. Racism.


6. Political laziness & issue crossover (15%)

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%)


2. Pro black racial preference


3. Liberal guilt (environment).


4. Liberal guilt (race). 


5. Party Affiliation Group-ism (Democratic). 


6. The desire to promote more positive role models for our black youth


7. Self Interest.


8. Political laziness & issue crossover (15%)

Common Interest


Opposing Interest


Images That agree


Images That disagree


Videos That agree


Videos That disagree


Website that agree


Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0


# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0



Total Idea Score: 0


Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Belief: The USA Should Cut Taxes

Most Likely Benefits

1. Higher disposable income for individuals and businesses.

2. Increased business investment leads to job growth.

3. Enhanced global competitiveness of U.S. corporations.

4. Stimulated economic expansion through increased spending.

Most Likely Costs

1. Increased national debt if tax cuts are not offset by spending reductions.

2. Potential underfunding of critical public services.

3. Rising economic inequality due to disproportionate benefits to higher-income individuals.

4. Short-term economic boost followed by long-term fiscal challenges.

---

Best Objective Criteria for Assessing the Validity of this Belief

1. Economic Growth Rates: Measuring GDP growth before and after tax cuts to assess impact.

2. Job Creation Data: Evaluating employment trends following tax policy changes.

3. Revenue Trends: Analyzing whether tax cuts increase or decrease overall government revenue.

4. Deficit and Debt Levels: Assessing changes in national debt and budget deficits post-tax cuts.

5. Consumer Spending Trends: Reviewing shifts in disposable income and spending habits.

6. Business Investment: Measuring capital expenditures and business expansions after tax policy changes.

7. Income Inequality Measures: Evaluating tax policy effects on wealth distribution.

8. Social and Economic Mobility: Analyzing whether tax cuts enhance or hinder upward mobility for low- and middle-income individuals.

9. Equity and Justice: Assessing the fairness of the tax system in distributing burdens and benefits across different economic groups.

10. Fairness of the System: Measuring public perception and empirical data on whether the tax system is seen as just and reasonable.

11. Lack of an Aristocracy or Oligarchy: Determining whether tax policy changes contribute to or prevent the concentration of wealth and power among a small elite.

Evidence

1. Evidence That Agrees:

   1. Historical tax cuts (e.g., Reagan tax cuts) have been followed by economic expansion.

   2. Lower corporate tax rates attract multinational businesses, leading to job creation.

   3. Empirical studies linking tax cuts to increased consumer spending.

2. Evidence That Disagrees:

1. Tax cuts without spending reductions have led to higher deficits (e.g., Bush-era tax cuts).

2. The Kansas tax experiment showed that aggressive tax cuts can lead to budget shortfalls.

3. Economic models demonstrate that tax cuts do not always lead to sustained economic growth.

Reasons to Agree:

1. High Levels of Government Spending Can Hinder Economic Growth

   1. Government spending has increased from 27% of GDP in JFK's time to about 37% today, potentially leading to:

      1. Reduced Private Investment: Government borrowing can crowd out private investors.

      2. Distorted Resource Allocation: Government spending might not align with market efficiencies.

      3. Increased Regulatory Burden: More government involvement often correlates with heightened regulation.

2. Potential Benefits of Tax Cuts

   1. Private Sector Growth: More capital available for businesses to expand.

   2. Economic Activity: Increased consumer spending due to higher disposable income.

   3. Self-Reliance: Encouraging less dependency on government services.

3. Tax Cuts Can Stimulate Economic Expansion

   1. Increased Disposable Income: Lower taxes mean more money in pockets for spending or saving.

   2. Consumer Spending: This can lead to a significant boost in economic activity.

   3. Business Investment and Job Creation: Businesses might invest in growth or new hires with lower tax burdens.

4. Tax Competitiveness in the Global Economy

   1. Business Attraction: Lower taxes can make the U.S. more appealing for global companies to establish or expand operations, potentially leading to:

      1. Increased Investment from both domestic and international sources.

---

Reasons to Disagree:

1. Increased Budget Deficits and National Debt

   1. Revenue Reduction: Cutting taxes without reducing spending or achieving substantial growth can lead to:

      1. Deficit Spending: Which may exacerbate national debt issues.

      2. Long-Term Fiscal Instability: Persistent deficits can strain future economic policy options.

2. Potential Reductions in Essential Government Programs

   1. Funding for Public Services: Tax cuts could mean less funding for:

      1. Education, Healthcare, Infrastructure: Critical areas that rely on government funds.

      2. Social Safety Nets: Programs like Social Security, Medicare, which support broad segments of the population.

3. Historical Evidence of Mixed Economic Outcomes

   1. Complexity of Impact: The effectiveness of tax cuts varies with:

      1. Type of Tax Cut: Different taxes have different economic implications.

      2. Economic Context: The state of the economy when cuts are implemented matters.

      3. Offsetting Policies: Whether other fiscal policies adjust in response to tax cuts.

4. Historical High Tax Rates Were Sustainable and Beneficial

   1. The top individual income tax rate reached a high of 94% in 1944-45, and the top corporate rate reached a high of 53% in 1968-69.

   2. During these periods, economic growth was strong, and the wealthiest Americans shared a common destiny, class, lifestyle, and experience with the middle class.

   3. Returning to higher tax levels can help prevent the rise of an aristocracy or oligarchy and promote economic equality.

---

Score:

1. # of reasons to agree: +4

2. # of reasons to disagree: -4

3. # of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

4. # of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: +0

5. Total Idea Score: 0

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons, and the score will change.

---

Resources

Websites:

1. Websites That Agree:

   1. Heritage Foundation

   2. Americans for Tax Reform

   3. National Review

   4. Cato Institute

2. Websites That Disagree:

   1. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

   2. Brookings Institution

   3. Economic Policy Institute

Videos:

1. Videos That Agree:

   1. Milton Friedman – The Case for Lower Taxes – YouTube

   2. The Laffer Curve Explained – PragerU

2. Videos That Disagree:

   1. How Tax Cuts Fail the Economy – Second Thought

   2. The Myth of Trickle-Down Economics – Vox

---

Books

1. Books That Agree:

   1. The Way the World Works by Jude Wanniski

   2. Taxation and Economic Development by Robert E. Hall

   3. The End of Prosperity by Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Peter J. Tanous

2. Books That Disagree:

   1. The Price of Inequality by Joseph E. Stiglitz

   2. The Myth of the Rational Market by Justin Fox

   3. Who Stole the American Dream? by Hedrick Smith

---

Miscellaneous

1. Related Arguments:

   1. Tax Policy and Economic Growth: The debate on how taxation influences economic expansion.

   2. Redistribution vs. Free Market Economics: Examines the balance between market freedom and social equity through tax policy.

---

Interest / Motivation

1. Interest / Motivation of Those Who Agree:

   1. Economic growth and job creation.

   2. Reduction of government interference in the economy.

   3. Increased personal financial freedom.

   4. Belief in supply-side economics and free markets.

2. Interest / Motivation of Those Who Disagree:

   1. Ensuring fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.

   2. Maintaining strong public services and infrastructure.

   3. Reducing income inequality.

   4. Preventing economic instability caused by deficits.

3. Shared Interests Between Those Who Agree and Disagree:

   1. A prosperous and stable economy.

   2. Sustainable long-term economic growth.

   3. Job creation and wage growth.

   4. A fair and functional tax system.

4. Opposing Interests Between Those Who Agree and Disagree (Key Obstacles Between Parties Preventing Resolution):

   1. The role of government in the economy—minimal vs. active involvement.

   2. Short-term economic stimulation vs. long-term fiscal sustainability.

   3. Wealth distribution—focus on economic freedom vs. reducing inequality.

   4. Prioritizing business growth vs. prioritizing social services.

---

2009 stimulus was filled with waste and misconceptions +1

Reasons to agree:

1. John Feehery. "Opinion: Obama’s fatal missteps." The Hill. October 3rd, 2011: "1. Failed to veto the initial stimulus package: Imagine for a moment if Obama had vetoed that initial stimulus package. Imagine if he insisted that Democratic leaders take out all the pork and cleanse the bill of unworthy projects. Imagine if he had insisted that congressional Democrats work with Republicans to include their ideas, because we are all in this together. He would have immediately branded himself as a different kind of president, as someone above the fray, as a leader who cares first about the country, not the Democratic Party. And if he had done that, he would have had the Republicans hopelessly divided. Of course, he didn’t take that step, congressional Democrats were able to walk all over him and Republicans stiffened up their resolve and presented a united front against the president and his plans."

Reasons to disagree:

1.  

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. Anti black racism


2. Confirmation bias (you decide that you don't like Obama, and so this becomes the prism that you see him. People always root for the home team, because over time they start to show interest, and then each new story tells them they were correct. When the other team acts badly, you get mad. When your team acts badly, you feel justified. You continue to identify with Obama, because you once did). 


3. Your a Republican. He is on the other team. He is the enemy. 

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. Pro black racial preference


2. Your a Democrat. He is on the same team, against the enemy

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Increasing taxes on big companies will limit job-creation +1

Reasons to agree:

1.  "Obama Could Skip the Class Warfare and Let the Oil and Gas Industry Create Jobs." Fox News. October 3rd, 2011: "President Obama conjured up his favorite boogeyman recently: the oil and gas industry. He reached for it when he released his job creation and deficit reduction package. Despite the fact that the oil and gas industry pays over $86 million a day in income taxes, royalties, bonuses and rents to the federal government, the president claimed that U.S. energy producers have not paid 'their fair share.' The president is proposing an additional $41 billion in new taxes on energy producers. This will result in higher energy prices, more oil imports, and in the end, few jobs in America. No wonder why the economy continues to be mired in an economic funk. President Obama is trying to exploit the misperception that the energy industry earns undo profits, when in fact it earned a net income of just 6 cents on the dollar. That compares unfavorably to the 8.6 cents for all U.S. manufacturing, according to third quarter 2010 data from API. But the president expects his class warfare argument to resonate beyond his core base of voters, he may be disappointed. Energy production reinvestments by oil and gas companies provided the United States with a $470 billion stimulus in spending, wages, and dividends in 2010, making it one of the few bright spots in the current economy. And it's ordinary middle-class American investors - millions of them, in fact - who own most oil company stock through mutual funds, pension funds, and retirement accounts. Ironically, the fine print of the President's proposal is riddled with job-killing shenanigans through the tax code. A study by Louisiana State University finance professor Joseph Mason concludes that just part of the president's plan would result in 155,000 job losses at the cost of $68 billion in lost wages. Obama's proposal is bad news to long-suffering American families at a time when the national unemployment remains fixed above 9 percent. Another irony is that the president's proposal would actually exacerbate the budget deficit. By increasing federal tax increase by $5 billion per year on the oil and gas industry, this would lead to lower domestic energy production as companies would produce less in the U.S. because of higher cost and instead import more oil. Instead of leading to higher government revenue, this scheme would result in a $128 billion loss for in government revenues, according to a study by energy research and consulting firm Wood Mackenzie."

Reasons to disagree:

1.  

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. Anti black racism


2. Confirmation bias (you decide that you don't like Obama, and so this becomes the prism that you see him. People always root for the home team, because over time they start to show interest, and then each new story tells them they were correct. When the other team acts badly, you get mad. When your team acts badly, you feel justified. You continue to identify with Obama, because you once did). 


3. Your a Republican. He is on the other team. He is the enemy. 

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. Pro black racial preference


2. Your a Democrat. He is on the same team, against the enemy

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

The only way to fix the problem of the rich having too much money is for the government to take it from them

Reasons to agree:

1. You can call it "taxes" but when you say the government has too much money, you are really saying that you want to take what they earned. 

Reasons to disagree:

1.  

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. Anti black racism


2. Confirmation bias (you decide that you don't like Obama, and so this becomes the prism that you see him. People always root for the home team, because over time they start to show interest, and then each new story tells them they were correct. When the other team acts badly, you get mad. When your team acts badly, you feel justified. You continue to identify with Obama, because you once did). 


3. Your a Republican. He is on the other team. He is the enemy. 

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. Pro black racial preference


2. Your a Democrat. He is on the same team, against the enemy

Common Interest

1. 
   

Opposing Interest

1.  

Images That agree

1. 


2. 


3. 

Images That disagree

1. 


2. 


3. 
   

Videos That agree

1.  

Videos That disagree

1.  

Website that agree

1. 
   

Websites that disagree

1.  

Related arguments:

1. 
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 0

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Stimulus should have been bigger, not smaller as GOP claims

Reasons to agree:

1. "It needed to be bigger," according to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and dozens of other economists such as Paul Krugman.

Reasons to disagree:

1.  

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. Anti black racism


2. Confirmation bias (you decide that you don't like Obama, and so this becomes the prism that you see him. People always root for the home team, because over time they start to show interest, and then each new story tells them they were correct. When the other team acts badly, you get mad. When your team acts badly, you feel justified. You continue to identify with Obama, because you once did). 


3. Your a Republican. He is on the other team. He is the enemy. 

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. Pro black racial preference


2. Your a Democrat. He is on the same team, against the enemy

Common Interest

1. 
   

Opposing Interest

1.  

Images That agree

1.   

Images That disagree

1. 
   

Videos That agree

1.  

Videos That disagree

1.  

Website that agree

1. 
   

Websites that disagree

1.  

Related arguments:

1. 
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 0

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Obama did not start our wars or bad economy.

Reasons to agree:

1. George Bush wrongly started the Iraq war


2. George Bush wrongly started the war in Afghanistan


3. George Bush wrongly passed TARP. 

Reasons to disagree:

1. Obama wrongly kept us in Iraq


2. Obama wrongly kept us in Afghanistan


3. Obama wrongly started war with Libya.


4. Obama borrowed too much money.


5. Obama did not start the bad economy, but he made it worse.


6. Obama wrongly extended President Bush's tax cuts.


7. Obama did a very bad job at investing in green jobs

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. Anti black racism


2. Confirmation bias (you decide that you don't like Obama, and so this becomes the prism that you see him. People always root for the home team, because over time they start to show interest, and then each new story tells them they were correct. When the other team acts badly, you get mad. When your team acts badly, you feel justified. You continue to identify with Obama, because you once did). 


3. Your a Republican. He is on the other team. He is the enemy. 

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. Pro black racial preference


2. Your a Democrat. He is on the same team, against the enemy

Common Interest

1. 
   

Opposing Interest

1.  

Images That agree

1.   

Images That disagree

1. 
   

Videos That agree

1.  

Videos That disagree

1.  

Website that agree

1. 
   

Websites that disagree

1.  

Related arguments:

1. 
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 3

# of reasons to disagree: -7

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 4

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change