Our Platform for Outlining Colorado’s Future

Reasons to agree : Government spending should be limited to essential programs The U.S. government should eliminate all non-essential spending. Test for necessity: "Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?" If a program is not essential to national security or economic prosperity, it should be cut. The U.S. has valid national interests America competes for resources, alliances, and global influence against regimes that oppose human rights and democracy. Supporting adversarial nations undermines U.S. values and strategic interests. Aid should align with American ideals, rewarding good behavior and discouraging bad behavior. The U.S. cannot afford unnecessary foreign aid The U.S. is trillions of dollars in debt, making it irresponsible to fund nations that do not support American goals. Prioritizing domestic economic stability is more important than financing adversaries. Aid to hostile nations strengthens opposition to the U.S. North Korea, f...

Reasons to agree : We should eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential. There are many things government does that we may like but that we do not need. The test should be this: " Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it ?" The federal government should stop doing things we don't need or can't afford.  It is wrong to take money from someone and give it to a cause that they feel is murder. We can't make arguments about how much some program may save us money in the future, we need to balance our budget now. Arguments about how such-and-such program might actually save the government money are always theoretical. Not spending the money in the 1st place will save 100% of the money that you don't spend.   Reasons to disagree : Mothers that don't really want their children, will raise children more likely to commit crime.  In the long run government money spend on family planning will result in less gov...

Reasons to agree : It doesn't matter that more money is spent on roads, and air travel than amtrak, because more people travel these methods. The simple fact is that more is spent per mile traveled per person, with each dollar given to amtrak, vs. other methods of Government spending.  According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsid...

Reasons to agree : Because we are in debt we must examine all expenses and ask "Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?" 20% of GDP is near the tax revenue our economy generates when healthy.  In 2010 federal spending accounted for 24.3% of federal spending.  The federal government should not spend more on social programs than the states.   We can cut 1/2 of a trillion dollars from the 2016 federal budget.   Score : # of reasons to agree: 5 # 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: 5 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

Reasons to agree :  Debt can kill us. Videos That agree 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

Reasons  to agree: 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.  Not all people who oppose gay marriage are bad people, but all racist are bad people.  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...

Reasons to agree: 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.  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.  You can show compassion, but when you are in debt, your only responsibility is to get out of debt.  Reasons to disagree: 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: They agree with the argument, outside of any interest or alterior motivation (30%) 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 o...

Most Likely Benefits Higher disposable income for individuals and businesses. Increased business investment leads to job growth. Enhanced global competitiveness of U.S. corporations. Stimulated economic expansion through increased spending. Most Likely Costs Increased national debt if tax cuts are not offset by spending reductions. Potential underfunding of critical public services. Rising economic inequality due to disproportionate benefits to higher-income individuals. Short-term economic boost followed by long-term fiscal challenges. Best Objective Criteria for Assessing the Validity of this Belief Economic Growth Rates: Measuring GDP growth before and after tax cuts to assess impact. Job Creation Data: Evaluating employment trends following tax policy changes. Revenue Trends: Analyzing whether tax cuts increase or decrease overall government revenue. Deficit and Debt Levels: Assessing changes in national debt and budget deficits post-tax cuts. Consumer Spending Trends: Reviewi...

Reasons  to agree: 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:   Probable interest  of those wh...

Reasons  to agree:  "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 unfavorab...