It’s like two different people are using Magiver’s name:
MAG 1-“If you don’t give the rich tax breaks, they won’t reinvest in America!”
MAG 2-“Why should the rich have to invest in America? It’s their money!”
Money is borrowed from foreign countries by the government because spending exceeds tax revenue so I suggest the following:
- spend only what is taken in (balanced budget)
- keep money circulating in the economy
- Jobs
But since you think poorly of your strawman foreign investment I have to ask you when was the last time you bought something made in the United States?
You created a strawman about foreign investment for the purposes of making an argument about how people spend their money.
I’ve got to leave for home right now-could someone please show Magiver how to properly apply the term “strawman” in the meantime?
Strawman is the act of creating a false premise for the sake of argument. You posted that people invest in foreign companies therefore the wealthy don’t invest in America which is a false premise.
Hey, see he does know what a strawman is!
(you see, noone has made the argument that he has just argued against, so that demonstrates by his use of one that he knows what a strawman is)
States give out educational grants all the time. It’s redundant to spend tax money funding the infrastructure for educational departments.
As I understand it, it cost over half a billion dollars which at 4,200 capacity equals $119,000 per student seat. The charter school built down the street from it cost $8.8 million to build or $16,000 per student seat. They could have built 9 more schools for the difference. Since California is running in the red right now it is a certainty that Federal money will be used to bail it out.
The strawman argument was made that wealthy people invest in foreign companies with the point that this was bad. It is a strawman because the inference depends on a majority of wealthy people making such investments.
Nope, sorry, an argument that you happen to disagree with isn’t the same as a strawman argument.
If I rephrased your argument in a way that makes it a different and weaker argument and then proceed to argue against that rephrased and weaker argument, that is creating a strawman version of your argument. Get it?
… for example, what you did in post #205 would qualify.
No, Czarcasm set up a false premise from which to argue.
That is not a strawman though. Are you paying attention at all?
So you disagree with a premise. It does not follow that the premise is then automatically false. You must prove that this premise is false before simply declaring that it is false.
Also none of this has anything to do with what a strawman is. Clearly you are not grasping the concept. Perhaps one of the other posters can explain better than I apparently have.
Uh no, it’s not up to me to prove a bad premise false in a debate. It’s up to the person presenting it that it is a valid premise.
Still doesn’t make it a strawman though. Way to stay on point.
Also, just to add - I hearby claim that every statement that you’ve made in this thread is false.
Now prove that isn’t the case.
No, I merely pointed out that the money from a tax cut can be invested anywhere in the world, and will not necessarily benefit the US economy.
ETA: I did not say, or infer that ALL of the tax cut would be invested in foreign companies.
Have a nice day Airbeck.
Oh, and my definition of a straw man fallacy would be if I created an argument that misrepresented your side of a debate, and then proceeded to show why it is not true.
For example: If I had said
This would be a straw man argument, since you did not posit any such thing - I made up a stupid argument and attributed it to you.
Thanks, I guess. You too?
I’m not sure what just happened here …
I think it was the old “have a nice day” falsehood switcheroo.