The Fed Shutdown Poll and Megathread

[CountDeMoney]

Man, I sure wish that was a strawman.

Your wish has come true.  Well, actually, it was true all along, but the effect is the same.

Right, because nobody has argued that the solution to the debt problem is to raise taxes, and specifically on the wealthy. Clearly a strawman.

It's comforting to isolate and focus on one item, and concentrate on that, isn't it?  How tre' Republican.

[Berkut]

Man, I sure wish that was a strawman.

Your wish has come true.  Well, actually, it was true all along, but the effect is the same.

Right, because nobody has argued that the solution to the debt problem is to raise taxes, and specifically on the wealthy. Clearly a strawman.

It's comforting to isolate and focus on one item, and concentrate on that, isn't it?  How tre' Republican.

Except that my post was actually about the ballooning budget, not about taxing the rich - that is just the part that grumbler chose to include in his response. So yeah...not at all concentrating on just one item at all - in fact, my post was pretty clearly focused more on the vastly increasing federal budget than it was on the fantasy solution you've proposed.

Of course, even if I had chosen to only concentrate on one item, that would not make it a strawman in any case.

And YOU certainly seem to think that the solution is to just raise taxes - I haven't ever heard you advocate for reducing spending, or even slowing down the increase in spending.

[grumbler]

Right, because nobody has argued that the solution to the debt problem is to raise taxes, and specifically on the wealthy. Clearly a strawman.

I was noting the strawman you actually used, "we can just "tax the rich" and that will make it all work out," not the weasel-wording you now use to avoid conceding the strawman. 

And I don't think anyone has argued that the solution to the deficit is just to raise taxes.  Even the most ardent tax-solution types concede that some kind of spending cuts are necessary.

Just in case you are actually interested in debating this and not simply engaging in hyperbole.

[Berkut]

Right, because nobody has argued that the solution to the debt problem is to raise taxes, and specifically on the wealthy. Clearly a strawman.

I was noting the strawman you actually used, "we can just "tax the rich" and that will make it all work out," not the weasel-wording you now use to avoid conceding the strawman. 

Ahh, right, weasel wording. That is what I thought this was about. Carry on.

And I don't think anyone has argued that the solution to the deficit is  just to raise taxes.  Even the most ardent tax-solution types concede  that some kind of spending cuts are necessary.

Incorrect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/tax-day-events_b_849840.html

In the latest budget deal, our politicians could have tackled the  deficit by stopping the flow of these ill-gotten billions to  corporations. Instead they cut billions from "wasteful" programs that do  "wasteful" things, like create new jobs, drive economic growth, and  help the needy and our nation's children. It's democracy in reverse and  it sickens me.

I think that is exactly the message that some on the left are sending.

[Berkut]

Another example:

Unnecessary Austerity, Unnecessary Shutdown

By Chuck Collins, Alison Goldberg, Scott Klinger, Sam Pizzigati
Reversing tax giveaways to the super-rich and the nation's largest corporations could raise $4 trillion within a decade and avert possible government closures.

Opening title and summary of the article here:

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/unnecessary_austerity_unnecessary_government_shutdown


Another:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/fixing-the-deficit-by-get_b_850655.html

The latest Congressional compromise on the federal budget reduces funds  for police and fire agencies and cuts $600 million from community health  care centers. Is there another way to reduce the deficit, rather than  depriving the lower and middle classes of necessary government benefits,  such as Medicaid and Medicare or educational grants?

...

Instead on increasing income taxes, which might arguably affect  single proprietorships and small businesses, we could impose a tax based  on wealth. We do consider the total wealth of an individual in  determining the estate tax when a person dies. And local government  units assess an annual tax based on the value of a person's real  property. Many European countries also have a wealth tax -- that is, a  tax on the total wealth (net worth) of each individual household, which  must be paid annually.
Our federal government could impose such a tax on an emergency basis,  to be applied only during the immediate financial crisis, say for the  next five years or even ten years.

   Budget Crisis?  Duh, Tax the Rich!                                 
By Robert Parry  February 24,  2011 

A great  tragedy of the United States  is that the answer to many of the  country's domestic problems is obvious, even  simple, but can't be done  because of a dominating political/media dynamic that  rules that  solution out.                   

The solution to these many problems  –  from the budget deficit to crumbling infrastructure, from mass  joblessness to  income inequality, from environmental degradation to  educational shortfalls --  is to raise taxes on the rich and to use that  money to get the United States  back on track and advancing toward the  future.
...
          However, it may be the most   important debate for the future of the United States and the health of  the  American Republic. If the government doesn't intervene through its  taxing  authority to redistribute some wealth that now is concentrating  among the  ultra-rich, the middle class is likely to continue shrinking  and the ranks of  the poor swelling.
          As the rich increasingly  dominate  the political process through unlimited campaign spending and  the financing of sophisticated  propaganda – like Fox News and  right-wing talk radio – the policy battles will  continue to be fought  on ground favorable to the Right: more cuts in public  spending, more  reductions in retirement and health programs, more union-busting.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/022411.html

[Berkut]

Just google "tax the rich" and you can find lots of articles from people claiming that taxing the wealthy, or taking their wealth in some fashion or another, is a necessary and sufficient solution to the problem.

I guess actually citing people making this argument is just more weasel words though.

[grumbler]

And I don't think anyone has argued that the solution to the deficit is  just to raise taxes.  Even the most ardent tax-solution types concede  that some kind of spending cuts are necessary.

Incorrect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/tax-day-events_b_849840.html

In the latest budget deal, our politicians could have tackled the  deficit by stopping the flow of these ill-gotten billions to  corporations. Instead they cut billions from "wasteful" programs that do  "wasteful" things, like create new jobs, drive economic growth, and  help the needy and our nation's children. It's democracy in reverse and  it sickens me.

I think that is exactly the message that some on the left are sending.

I think you need to re-read what you just posted.  Moore isn't saying that the deficit could be solved in this fashion, he just notes that it could have been "tackled" in the latest budget deal but cutting tax breaks rather than cutting the spending that they cut.  I don't agree (Moore is the most extreme moron one can find on the topic, which makes your failure to find even him saying what you claim in your strawman even more telling), but there you are.

[Berkut]

You claimed "I don't think anyone has argued that the solution to the deficit is to just raise taxes". I just provided you with several examples of people claiming that the solution to the deficit is to raise taxes on the rich. They don't mention anything else, and in several instances (including Moore) explicitly cite raising taxes in counter-point to complaints about reducing spending.

Hell, if that won't convince you that people are making the argument, I don't think anything will. talk about weasel words.

[grumbler]

Just google "tax the rich" and you can find lots of articles from people claiming that taxing the wealthy, or taking their wealth in some fashion or another, is a necessary and sufficient solution to the problem.

I guess actually citing people making this argument is just more weasel words though.

None of the people you cite use the words you use, or propose that taxation alone solves the problem.

Now, I am sure that if you crawl far enough up the asshole of the left, you will find someone in some blog somewhere arguing that taxation alone is enough, but they are not arguing that here.

[grumbler]

You claimed "I don't think anyone has argued that the solution to the deficit is to just raise taxes". I just provided you with several examples of people claiming that the solution to the deficit is to raise taxes on the rich. They don't mention anything else, and in several instances (including Moore) explicitly cite raising taxes in counter-point to complaints about reducing spending.

Hell, if that won't convince you that people are making the argument, I don't think anything will. talk about weasel words.

I believe people are making an argument when you show me people making an argument.  Showing people who make part of the argument and asserting that they must reject any part they don't explicitly mention is engaging in strawman argumentation.

[Berkut]

Just google "tax the rich" and you can find lots of articles from people claiming that taxing the wealthy, or taking their wealth in some fashion or another, is a necessary and sufficient solution to the problem.

I guess actually citing people making this argument is just more weasel words though.

None of the people you cite use the words you use

So I have to use the exact same words they use in order to NOT be creating a strawman?

, or propose that taxation alone solves the problem.

Budget Crisis?  Duh, Tax the Rich!                                 
By Robert Parry  February 24,  2011

A great  tragedy of the United States  is that the answer to many of the  country's domestic problems is obvious, even  simple, but can't be done  because of a dominating political/media dynamic that  rules that  solution out.

Hmm, seems like he is in fact saying that THE answer is to get the money from the rich.

And yes, some of them do in fact claim that the sole solution to the problem is to raise taxes on the wealthy.  When you make an argument of the form "We have a problem, and the solution is A" then you are in fact claiming that the sole solution is A. I guess we could assume that they really mean the solution is A+B+C, but since they only state A, I think assuming they really mean AB and C would be the strawman, not assuming that what they say is in fact what they mean.

[Berkut]

You claimed "I don't think anyone has argued that the solution to the deficit is to just raise taxes". I just provided you with several examples of people claiming that the solution to the deficit is to raise taxes on the rich. They don't mention anything else, and in several instances (including Moore) explicitly cite raising taxes in counter-point to complaints about reducing spending.

Hell, if that won't convince you that people are making the argument, I don't think anything will. talk about weasel words.

I believe people are making an argument when you show me people making an argument. 

I've given you several examples of people arguing that the solution to the deficit problem is to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Of course, I only need a single example to refute your claim that "nobody" has made such an argument, but I am kind like that.

And like I said, you can find plenty of other examples of this attitude out there, in blog posts, op-eds, comments, etc., etc.

Showing people who make part of the argument and asserting that they must reject any part they don't explicitly mention is engaging in strawman argumentation.

Showing people who make a complete argument, and claiming that they are making that argument is a pretty fool-proof refutation of a accusation of creating strawmen.

[Neil]

Berkut got trolled.

[Berkut]

Berkut got trolled.

I think you are right.

[grumbler]

None of the people you cite use the words you use

So I have to use the exact same words they use[/quote]
You can use whatever words you want.

Budget Crisis?  Duh, Tax the Rich!                                 
By Robert Parry  February 24,  2011

A great  tragedy of the United States  is that the answer to many of the  country's domestic problems is obvious, even  simple, but can't be done  because of a dominating political/media dynamic that  rules that  solution out.

Hmm, seems like he is in fact saying that THE answer is to get the money from the rich.[/quote]
The answer "to many of the  country's domestic problems."  Not THE answer to all budget woes.

And yes, some of them do in fact claim that the sole solution to the problem is to raise taxes on the wealthy. 

Then why don't you cite those arguments instead of quote mining a bunch of people who don't say that and then arguing that they reject anything they do not specifically propose?