The Instigator
Deficit_Owl
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Hayd
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Bill Clinton's Surplus was bad.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 87435
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

Deficit_Owl

Pro

I am going to argue that Bill clinton's balanced budget led to a recession, and, if one reads deeper, argue that a federal surplus is harmful to the economy.
I am sure my opponent is familiar with the equation for GDP: C + I + G + (X-M)
A federal surplus simply shows the government taxing more then it's spending. If we look at the 90's, we see the US trade deficit exploding. This, obviously, caused the trade deficit to subtract from the GDP, and the government, running the "surplus" kept sucking dollars out of the private sector when it needed them. What compensated? Private consumption. Notice how household savings collapsed during the Clinton years? Household debt also began to surge. Because when the federal government takes on a "surplus" private sector savings are directly affected. The private sector can't survive in negative territory, the private sector, unlike a currency issuer such as the us govt, can't continue to spend more then it brings in. I feel like adding something else to this: When the government is running a surplus, it's not issuing as many bonds. But various entities like treasury payouts and a safe place to park earned dollars. Isn't it funny that fannie and freddie insurance surged in the 90's? This is where debt started being sold like never before, due to a lack of bonds. The surplus went hand in hand with low household savings, high household debt, and the revving up of the fannie and freddie debt boom.
Hayd

Con

I accept all of Pro's arguments as true. Yet I contest the notion that they are bad. All of these things happened so that they wouldn't happen again, in a worse manner. Without it, we would not have learned from our mistakes, and been able to become a better nation. Thus, the deficit was good.
Debate Round No. 1
Deficit_Owl

Pro

So you accept the debate only to show that you agree with me? Actually, we haven't learned from our mistakes, listen to the politicians praising the surplus and the calls to balance the budget.
Hayd

Con

Pro's only objections is that some politicians haven't learned. I agree, but giving a few isolated incidences or extreme examples is not enough to conclude an entire idea. In general we have.
Debate Round No. 2
Deficit_Owl

Pro

Deficit_Owl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Deficit_Owl

Pro

Deficit_Owl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Deficit_Owl

Pro

Apologies for not posting, very busy in real life. We can look to history to conclude that surpluses/debt reduction leads to undesirable economic results. Every time the government has run a surplus or undergone "debt" reduction, a recession has followed. The clinton surplus is the recent example that also spilled over to the recent recession, with the private sector debt accumulation we're all so fondly aware of. I suppose I will take this time to explain modern monetary theory and some other stuff since I'm sure that's what my "opponent" is looking for :)

First, dollars are debt. We can touch on this later if you want to.
The "money multiplier theory" is false. Banks don't loan out deposits, nor do they have to set aside anything to lend. There is no limited pile of capital.
Banks can't create money without loans. Loans create deposits.
The us government faces no solvency risk.
The US has no foreign debt.
The "national debt" is simply the accounting offset for the private sectors savings.
Hayd

Con

I agree with Pro, all of these things were bad. But they needed to happen so we could fix them, learn from our mistakes. Thus since we can prevent these from happening in the future, the surplus was good. This is a point that Pro has dropped the entire debate.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
How did he give reason to believe his argument? There was no link in his. My argument is that now we can learn from our mistakes, which we couldn't do before. Thus we could prevent something worse from happening. Thus surplus was overrall good
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.

[*Reason for non-removal*] A forfeit is sufficient reason to award conduct. The reporter's view that these votes are opportunistic doesn't alter the fact that they are sufficient under the standards.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: famousdebater// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Double forfeiture. Pro provides no sources giving his arguments such little weight that they are virtually non existent.

[*Reason for non-removal*] A forfeit is sufficient reason to award conduct. The reporter's view that these votes are opportunistic doesn't alter the fact that they are sufficient under the standards.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Rosalie// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Ff from pro

[*Reason for non-removal*] A forfeit is sufficient reason to award conduct. The reporter's view that these votes are opportunistic doesn't alter the fact that they are sufficient under the standards.
************************************************************************
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
The resolution was whether the surplus was bad. It was good, because the good outweighed the bad for the reasons I listed.
Posted by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
Yeah, but I think you needed to explicitly frame it that way in round 1, and you didn't quite (You contested that "they" (Pro's notions) were bad, rather than saying that they were bad but outweighed by the good overall) . So the resolution was not that the bad outweighed the good overall, only that it was bad period. Which you agreed to in the end.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
The surplus was good, as framed by my last sentence of R5. Since the good outweigh the bad, as I argued the entire debate. Of course I conceded it had some bad, but the good outweighed these bad, so overrall it was good.
Posted by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
@hayd, in round one you accepted Pro's notions as true but "contest the notion that they were bad". But, by the final round you had changed your mind and said "all those things were bad". This is a concession. The surplus was bad. It may also have been good, but that's extraneous to the resolution the way you framed it.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
But I tend to agree that a surplus isn't necessarily desirable.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
uh... trade deficits don't "subtract" from the economy.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
Deficit_OwlHaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Deficit_OwlHaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
Deficit_OwlHaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a good argument that surpluses sucked dollars out of the private sector. Con conceded to all of Pro's arguments, but argued the deficit is still a good thing since we learned from our mistakes. Con didn't substantiate the argument really well. Pro gave a weak rebuttal to Con's argument by stating some politicians didn't learn. Pro agreed but argued that doesn't mean he is right, but Pro didn't give me a reason to believe he is wrong. Pro gets arguments since he gave me reasons to believe his arguments unlike Con. conduct for forfeit.
Vote Placed by Rosalie 1 year ago
Rosalie
Deficit_OwlHaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff from pro
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Deficit_OwlHaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Double forfeiture. Pro provides no sources giving his arguments such little weight that they are virtually non existent.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Deficit_OwlHaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
Deficit_OwlHaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes that the surplus was bad and so loses on arguments. He also argues that it was good because "we learned from our mistakes" which means that it was good and bad, which is still a win for Pro. Conduct for forfeits.