A Tea Party President Would be Disastrous for America.
Debate Rounds (5)
Pro agrees with the motion that a Tea Party President would be disastrous.
Con disagrees with the aforementioned motion.
The Tea Party represent the extreme right of the Republican Party. They claim to be libertarians, although they are pro-life, pro-family values, pro military and anti-immigration. Its stance on religion and politics is rather inconsistent, with many key figures in favour of secularisation, and many others in favour of turning the United States into more of a theocracy. Their principle 'Defecit spending must end' is contrary to the nature of modern economics, and they are naive to think that the supposed state tyranny would not be replaced by private tyranny. As a socialist, I believe that the state has a fundamental obligation to help those that cannot help themselves, and the values of the Tea Party appear to be a series of reactionary destructions of the institutions designed to stop people from living in abject poverty; and establish a canis canem edit world of individuals, not societies.
Now that I have gotten definitions out of the way, on to the debate. A tea party president would be good for America. In my argument I will basically address two sides of the party, economics, which I will address heavily through issues like spending, taxation, and distribution of wealth. My second topic will be society, which I will most likely address less but will include areas such as military, family, and immigration. I will not address religion in any way during my debates as people will undoubtedly have different beliefs on the topic and a tea party president would not have the power to change how religion works in America, so the topic is irrelevant anyway.
At this point, I will let Pro take the debate floor.
I look forward to his response and may this be a good, clean debate.
Prenote - By 'liberal', I refer to fiscal conservatism, a la Adam Smith and classical economics
The dismantlement of the state, or the fiscal and monetary policy making machines that it contains would be diabolically stupid for any government of any country to do, especially in a country as democratic as the USA. The government is the only truly accountable institution there is, and is therefore the best institution to take on essential services such as healthcare, infrastructure, defense and education. In countries such as France or my home, the UK, how a government manages the services it provides is a key aspect of any political party's manifesto. This makes the government accountable for the services it provides, as if they fail to provide them adequately, they have effectively committed electoral suicide. Basic economic theory, along with a little common sense and research acumen shows that the private sector, in a liberal setting, is at best accountable on only a consumer choice basis, such as choosing which supermarket to shop at, or which brand of clothing to buy, though in a monopolistic situation, the primary aim of a private firm, especially a corporation, is to maximise profit. The aim of the government is to win votes, which it does, in the sphere of public services, by providing a service well, at either an affordable price or gratis. The corporations owning the hospitals do not care about patient welfare or providing a low-cost service, as they tend to have regional monopolies, which severely damage consumer welfare when in the hands of entities that have the primary objective of maximising profit. I assume that a conservative economic policy would relax laws that restrict price increases or cost cutting by the firms, thus allowing them to screw consumers to their hearts' content. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the only monopoly or essential service provider that should exist is a state-owned one, as they have accountability to the consumer and will not exploit them; and they can guarantee that the rich get the same services as the poor. Addressing the issue of cost that the GOP seems hell-bent on hammering home; the withdrawal of subsidies to health insurance companies, combined with the increased productivity that is resultant from having universal health care would compensate for the cost, as explained by the US spending twice as much money as a percentage of GDP than the UK does currently.
The military-industrial complex is a fundamental evil in American politics. It profits from the misery of people in the Third World, who are killed, maimed or dispossessed by wars at far-flung corners of the world, which alienates the western world from Middle Easterners and in turn causes more wars, perpetuating the cycle of agitation, war, collateral damage, agitation, war, etc... I am in no way suggesting an isolationist policy, merely a peaceful interventionist policy that does not cost the US taxpayers a trillion dollars (if one includes interest on war debt) per annum. A Tomahawk cruise missile, for instance, costs in excess of a million dollars per unit, so that's over a million dollars of money that could pay for twenty nurses or police officers quite literally going up in smoke and being sprayed into Afghan and Pakistani civilians, combined in a total stockpile valued at around two and a half billion dollars. How can a person who is pro foreign intervention say that the need to murder civilians in foreign countries is more important than the need to provide basic healthcare to the forty million Americans that live without even the most basic form of healthcare? Fiscal responsibility is spending tax dollars on things that actually matter, rather than projectiles to fling at Middle Eastern shepherds or giving arms to Latin American warlord
The Federal Reserve Bank is something the Tea Party wish to abolish, which would apparently increase liberty in the country and all the other right wing balderdash they peddle on an almost daily basis. A central bank is the cornerstone of a modern economy, and must exist for the economy to progress beyond the preindustrial world that the founding fathers existed in and the Tea Party seem intent on projecting America back into. Milton Friedman, though I fundamentally disagree with most of his theory, was right when he said that controlling the money supply was an essential component of a state, as it influences the behavior of individuals and businesses, and helps to maintain a stable economy with growth. I am opposed to private intervention in the Federal Reserve Bank, such as Wall St dabbling with the interest rates, but control of the money supply is all that prevents banks from charging extortionate interest rates and nothing being built. The federal reserve is a latecomer, with the Bank of England being established in the mid 17th century and the Bank of France in the early 19th century, though there appears to be an uncanny correlation between the establishment of a central bank and the industrialisation of an economy. As long as it remains independent of party politics and Wall St, the federal reserve is fine.
In conclusion, their economic policies are ludicrous and reactionary, and should be left in the eighteenth century where they belong.
Of course, with tax cuts, must also come budget cuts. This stage is rarely mentioned with tax cuts and it becomes the big issue of, cut revenue, increase debt. However, if you cut revenue, and cut expenses even more, an increased surplus comes. As far as where to cut, I cannot be certain, I advocate cutting welfare, the EPA, and the IRS, but many tea party members may have an entirely different plan for cutting spending.
I would now like to address regulations. Regulations are bad for business. The EPA constantly creates regulations which a business must have to pay to adhere to. Where does a business get the money to adhere to these regulations? How many people have to be unemployed so that high efficiency light bulbs from China can be used in place of the ones from Tennessee that won't kill you if they get broken?
"The aim of the government is to win votes"
The aim of the government is to make the keep the people safe and free. Does the constitution say that it can sacrifice freedom or safety of the population if it will win votes? NO!
You claim that public services are important and that corporations do not care about the welfare of the patients.
However, look at Obamacare. It refused to pay for an operation that could have saved a woman's life, but did offer to pay to have her euthanized. See a problem. Where is the concern for welfare here? Corporations have to remain competitive, thus service is better and prices are lower, hence, the entire theory behind capitalism. Furthermore, government services hurt to people. Since Obamacare even became an idea, employers have had to lay off people and insurance rates have skyrocketed. How is this good for the people? Obamacare does not even offer good medical care, often, people have to wait months to be seen by a doctor under Obamacare. How is this good for the people?
You commented on the military.
I will again address the governments sole responsibilities. To keep the people of America free. To keep the people OF AMERICA SAFE. Oh well if we have to sacrifice the safety of others to keep our people safe. It is not our job to please the world. It is our job to prevent innocent Americans dying at the hands of foreigners.
As far as isolationism goes, the tea party half way supports it. Most do not support America being the Worlds Police Force. However, most do support intervention if a country poses a threat to us.
Federal Reserve Bank
The tea party supports a currency backed up by gold. The Federal Reserve does not do this. Some believe it should be abolished, some believe it should be reformed. Either way, a president would not hold the power to do this so it is irrelevant. Furthermore, even if the president did have the power, I could not speak for them as the party is split on this issue.
I will address society and counter arguments next round.
The Low Tax Fallacy
Low taxation is simply a way of funneling money away from the poor and towards the rich. Not only that, it has been proven not to work in the long run, as proven rather conveniently by the two example you gave - the Post-WWI model and the Reaganite model of Reagan to Bush Jr, both of which have failed miserably. I will grant that they both lead to booms in the financial sector, as proven by the 1920s, 80s and 90s booms respectively. But all of them resulted in huge financial crashes, namely the Wall Street Crash and the credit crunch, and their subsequent depressions and recessions. This is because the concentration of wealth in the top quintile of the population results in excessive speculatory investment and increasingly irresponsible financial behaviour. This increase in activity in the non-tangible aspect of the finance sector which results from the upper classes having too much money has invariably resulted in a bubble, which then burst and took thousands or millions of innocent people with it (The Dutch Black Tulip Crisis is the earliest modern example of this, taking place in 1630s Netherlands). It refers to the overvaluing of a good that has little tangible value in the real world; in the 1920s it was shares in intermediate-sized businesses, and in late C20, it was sub-prime mortgages, both of which resulted in financial ruin for many people in the bottom eighty percent, with the top twenty percent escaping relatively unscathed, despite being the ones responsible. In fact, the opposite of what you said is true. Roosevelt and Eisenhower's presidencies, as well as Atlee, Macdonald and Wilson's premierships in the UK all saw huge periods of economic expansion or recovery, through the use of high taxes and spending, therefore espousing fundamentally socialist values of big government and 'from each according to his means, to each according to his means.'
With regards to your remarks on healthcare, I forgot to make it clear at the start that I am against anything short of Universal Health Care, therefore I am opposed to Obamacare. The hospitals and systems are still fundamentally privatised, which is the reason for the poor quality of care; and your anecdote of the patient denied an operation but offered euthanasia is most likely either a complete fabrication or at best, an example of cancer treatment, which could marginally prolong life, but would not guarantee a quality of life to justify the large resource drain. In Germany, France and the UK, countries with their own versions of the Affordable Care Act enacted in 1876, 1911 and 1945 respectively, state-owned healthcare is among the best in the world, with private care available, but unable to match the cost-effectiveness of the nationalised form, as shown by private hospitals established by the current Cameron government. The far-right is fond of the 'Death Panel' accusation against nationalised healthcare, as well as unnecessary bureaucracy; but these claims have little foundation in the truth. The 'Death Panel' refers to the allocation of treatment based on need, rather than means, which is a fundamentally more utilitarian and moral way of allocating scarce resources; and that there is virtually no evidence that the bureaucracy is any worse under an NHS than under a private healthcare system.
As for the constitution, it works very well as a nominal guideline for a government's operation, but interpretations of it, as well as literally taking it in its original form in late C18, a time that is completely different to early C21, tend to obstruct the practical objective of the government, which is to win elections. It was a period of social experiment, where the subjective and unpragmatic concept of 'liberty' was valued only in its economic sense, espousing the values of British economist Adam Smith, which were all very well in a time when there were no fears of climate change or the outstripping of resources, other than the Malthusian doctrine, which was embraced in Europe but not in the Americas, where there seemed to be an inexhaustible supply of land from the endless western expansion. This was a preindustrial philosophy, and did not take into account the exponential economic growth that would occur with the industrial revolution. The constitution has been used as a means to block social reform that would have meant that the USA may not be socially trapped in the 1920s. The idea that US aggression is a way of guaranteeing the freedom and safety of the US population is a severe fallacy of logic. It has been shown that the War on Terror has only encouraged more terror, and every terrorist attack since the start of it has been a direct result of US aggression against Muslims and the ME in general. The wars are merely to perpetuate the military-industrial complex, and to crush Arab Pan-Nationalism, which would restructure the power base of the world. The flagrant disregard for the lives of foreigners that you exhibited appears to have elements of eugenics and Social Darwinism, viewing the people of the USA as some sort of 'master race', whose citizens are somehow genetically superior to those of others. That view is straight from C18, and is completely irrelevant and diplomatically stupid in the modern world.
Gun Control is a hallmark of an organised modern society. A person should only own a gun for sport or employment, i.e. farmers, as in the rest of the world. The Second Amendment is completely irrelevant in a modern industrial democracy, and was not introduced to protect the people from tyranny, but to protect colonists heading west from Native Americans, whose land they were stealing. The 'People Need Guns to Protect Them From the Government' argument is facile and inaccurate. No revolution has succeeded based entirely upon hoarders of small arms. People in Occupied Europe during WWII were allowed to keep their guns, as the Germans knew that a population armed with shotguns and hunting rifles could not overpower the Wehrmacht. They were largely right, as proven by the failed Warsaw Uprising, which was performed with civilian firearms. The Maquisards on the other hand were given rifles, machine guns and explosives by the British, as well as being trained by SOE operatives in France, and even they did not succeed until Operation Overlord was in full swing. In Cuba, Castro's army was armed with Soviet weapons, including artillery guns and planes, weapons not covered by the Second Amendment. Even the American War of Independence was carried out at first by peasants armed with civilian weapons until Valley Forge, when they were equipped with French military grade weapons, crucially artillery, and given military training and reorganised into a modern European army; and henceforth won most of the engagements they were engaged in, the final coup de grace at Yorktown delivered by the French Navy. In Russia, the peasants had limited weapons, largely confined to pitchforks and hunting rifles from the previous century. To win the civil war, the Bolsheviks received the loyalty of the rank and file of the Imperial army, with the chinless aristocratic officers backing the Tsarists. They won the war by winning the support of people with military education and arms, which would not have necessarily been provided by the Second Amendment.
Traditional Family Values and the persecution of homosexuals is another Nazi-esque aspect of the Tea Party. The Grassroots committal to the nuclear family represents the nostalgic views of geriatrics and people applying bronze age logic to the modern day. My parents are divorced, and are living happily in non-marital relationships which are just as stable as marital ones. The studies into Traditional Family Values and homosexuality quoted are largely quoted from 1950s experiments which drew a conclusion before the actual test, and have since been disproven.
Cowboy0108 forfeited this round.
After you, whenever it suits you.
Immigration: The tea party members support strong border control and little to no amnesty for illegals. As illegals make up much of the work force for farms and construction, their deportation would result in the opening of an entire new area for employment. Furthermore, our resources will not be wasted on illegal immigrants who do not pay taxes.
Gun control: The tea party members support little gun control. They do tend to want the small amount of gun control enforced however. In America, cities and states with strong gun control have statisically higher crime rates. Cities and states with little gun control have lower crime rates. The tea party supports people's right to defend themselves, and when someone is trying to kill you and your family, you will want a gun.
Healthcare: By giving people forms of healthcare from the government, privately owned healthcare costs rise, making it harder for businesses to supply healthcare to employees or for people to buy healthcare for themselves.
Traditional Family Values: The tea party supports traditional family values. They simply do not want the defintion of marriage to be changed or the importance of marriage to be changed.
Taxes: By lowering taxes across the board, rich and poor alike, the people have money to spend. A person who really makes 60,000 dollars will only be able to keep 40,000 dollars after taxes. Every dollar counts. Many tea party members support entirely different forms of taxation to replace income tax, such as fairtax and flat tax.
Sorry for the forfeit, I thought I hit submit, but I guess I didn't.
henryajevans forfeited this round.
Since I have nothing to counter in this argument, I will sum it up quickly:
A tea party president would not be disastrous for America. He or she would actually be beneficial. However, if you continue to believe that the tea party president would be bad, he or she would not be "disastrous", just not good.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Waxwing 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Provdeserved a far better opponent. After doing a little snooping into con's profile, I'm finding it difficult not to believe he's just a troll.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.