The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

Cutting taxes and Cutting Spending

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,281 times Debate No: 20415
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Cutting Taxes and cutting fiscal spending has been proven dangerous throughout history.
POINT 1- For example, Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) cut taxes 3 times and cut spending during his presidency. In 1929, the stock market crashed. Then the Great Depression followed.
POINT 2- Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), on the other hand, took care of things by increasing the taxes to their original rate, and same with spending. In 1934 and 1935, the economic recovery began. Then, in 1939, there was a full economic recovery. In this example, cutting taxes and spending ended up in failure, and because of Herbert Hoover doing the opposite, the economy recovered.
POINT 3- Another example is when George Bush cut taxes. These tax cuts are still in action and always were since Bush passed them. Ask yourself, are we better off now? The definite answer is no.
POINT 4- Also, cutting taxes increases the deficit, or the difference between fiscal expenditures and total tax collection. Meanwhile, cutting fiscal spending cuts jobs, and therefore cuts the GDP, which in turn, lowers total tax revenue because there is less money floating around. Then, the deficit grows even more, but then, when you add inflation to our recipe, it becomes the recipe for disaster and the deficit explodes.

So before you vote conservative in 2012, take this into account. To whomever accepts this challenge, good luck.


I will first attack the cons examples then introduce reasons why cutting taxes and spending is good...

1) Tax cuts did not cause the Great Depression.... The Great Depression came about due to a breakdown in overseas trade, overproduction of goods, breakdown of WWI payments between countries, banks handing out loans to everyone with no regards to their credit or if they would be able to pay off such loans, and most importantly of all a reckless tactic of investing in the stock market by millions of investors causing the stock market to fluctuate drastically until the point where the stocks costing people fortunes....

2) The US began to recover from the great depression from massive government intervention by FDR. When hoover increased taxes throughout his presidency, average wages did not follow suit. This means that as the Great Depression unfolded in Hoover's lap, millions of Americans were under an even harder financial burden due to tax hikes. The tax hikes also doubled with inflation to cause many Americans beforehand to be unable to even buy bread.... Tax hikes did not end the depression, it made it far worse.
(right from the link)
"The tax increases of the 1930s coincided with large deficits and economic stagnation. While the monetary and
trade policy mistakes of the 1930s are now widely understood, the tax policy mistakes are less appreciated.
As Congress grapples with today’s budget deficit and mediocre economic growth, it should look to the tax cuts
of the 1920s for inspiration rather than the failed “budget balancing with high taxes” approach of the 1930s."

This study is basically stating and analyzing how tax CUTS would have healed the Great Depression better than tax HIKES

3) This is the silliest argument Ive ever seen. The reason we are in an economic crisis today is not because Bush wanted to cut taxes by 3%, its because following 9/11 a massive initiative against terrorism resulted in two very bloody, prolonged, and costly wars that put a hell of a strain on America's budget and caused the national debt to mushroom outwards. While that was happening a Global Financial Crisis erupted as a result of overproduction of goods, historic inflation, and this time the prime culprit was a housing bubble that once it burst started to cause many financial systems and institutions to completely collapse. Tax cuts didnt get us to where we are today, it was everything but.

4) It is pretty true that cutting spending can cost jobs, however the loss of jobs may not drastically affect the debt that the Con thinks it will. Those who lose jobs may find other jobs, jobs are created every month so by the end of every fiscal year the impact of spending cuts would grow steadily softer. That means as the months time the alleged revenue in taxes lost grows smaller since jobs are created, people get hired, and now have a taxable salary.

So to summarize, while cutting spending does cost jobs, it immediately reduces the deficit while the taxable incomes lost by the loss of jobs decreases month to month soo that given enough time the economy could produce enough new jobs to absorb all of these employees allowing tax revenue to continue while spending is directly reduced and the deficit a chance to grow smaller.

Also there is a very fatal error that the Con has overlooked, Let me explain as simply as i can,

Raising taxes (what con wants) ->more money for the government to use (what the government wants)
More money -> Will the government use it to pay off debt or to spend it on new things? (Wars, Defense, etc)
Pay off debt or increase spending? -> Usually results in government spending income instead of paying off debt

Raising taxes does not guarantee the deficit will be reduced if the government spends that extra cash on programs rather than paying off its debt....

Ill give a few points regarding why lower taxes and lower spending are good...
Spending should be cut because

1) Spending is getting out of hand....
The US in 2010 spent as much money in a single year (3.5 trillion) as it did in its first 198 YEARS OF EXISTENCE
(chart is towards bottom)

The spending by the government is getting completely out of hand, causing the national debt to only skyrocket, but rather than cutting uncontrolled debt, the Con thinks that spending should CONTINUE to increase and rely completely on raising taxes to pay off the debt. But as I showed before even if we do balance the budget and make a profit, the government might not use the spare money to fight the deficit, it may blow it all on new programs or say another war.

2) Tax revenue cannot keep up with spending.
Currently, the rises in spending are outpacing the rises in tax revenue causing the national debt to continue to soar upwards here in the near future. If we simply allowed spending to continue to mushroom and focus exclusively on raising taxes to compete with spending, then we are looking at a dismal future, look at the chart below showing tax revenue and spending that we would have to DOUBLE taxes to offset spending and have enough left over to put a dent in the national debt...

3) Cutting taxes
If you cut taxes, that gives the US population more money to spend. More spending money for the middle and lower classes means more consumption of goods, which is great for businesses. That allows them to make more money causing expansion, which makes more jobs or higher wages, you can see where im going with this right? lower taxes = healthier economy since people spend more when they get mroe money (LIKE THE GOVERNMET!)

I got 2,000 characters left, but ill end here since ive made my point for this round.....
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for your opinion. Being my first debate, I did not grasp the stubborness of opponents, I joined four debates at once, thinking that a paragraph or two is enough. Well, I guess I was wrong. I used better strategies in my other debates, and I will try to shape up my unexplained, unstructured, and first debate.

POINT 1- Politicians like to lobby, and Calvin did just that. He cut taxes for the rich 3 times (it affected the top 10 percent). Now, when you cut taxes, you increase the deficit. Calvin cut spending to close this increase (which he failed to do too.) However, he does not understand that The government expenditures are closely linked to peoples jobs. Cutting spending cuts jobs, which in turn, cuts the total GDP, whcih slashes tax collection, and then the deficit grows. Because of Calvin's massive spending cuts, companies could not have as many employees, months later the stocks dropped. The cause of the stocks dropping was the US massive spending cuts, Britain returning to the gold standard, and other governments experiencing Recession. Also many countries over printed money, thus causing inflation. Herbert Hoover raised taxes on the upper bracket, sent out what we would call bailouts, and then altered our gold standard. It was no longer $20/oz it was now $35/oz. This all happened in 1932 Then the U.S. economy began to recover, and it was in fact the first country to show signs of recovery. Britain and many other countries abolished the gold standard completely, and recovered as well. Then the Nazi's came to power in Germany and war started.

POINT 2- I did not mean that Bush Tax cuts was all that caused the current mess, but you know and I know that is played it's role.

POINT 3- Pro does not seem to understand the term "deficit". Let me explain, the deficit is the difference between the tax revenues and the government expenditures. It is not the governments debt.

POINT 4- Germany
We can agree that Germany is a successful country. They have minimal debt, healthy exports and happy people. However, according to income tax is 42% on people making between 52,882-250,730 Euros. 1 euro=1.285 US Dollars. The minimum is 70,000 dollars a year. These people pay 42% on income tax and pay other taxes too. This explains Germany's excellent economic stance before the Euro crisis (which was not Germany's fault).

Here is a website that further explains my point:

I am running out of time to post this argument, I have 5 minutes left. I did the best I could with 30 minutes.


1) I have already shown how cutting spending does not necessarily contribute to a catastrophic fall in jobs and causes other economic woes and that through natural job creation on a monthly basis the economy itself can recover quite fast. But you claim that,

"the cause of the stocks dropping was the US massive spending cuts, Britain returning to the gold standard, and other governments experiencing Recession" - Which is all completely wrong
The Stock market crashed due to:
- 1 - Overzealous investment into dangerous stocks by investors who practiced "buying on margin"
- 2 - Banks dangerously using people's money for loans and often investing into the stock market itself
- 3 - An earlier mini crash also caused the stock market to be poised for an even bigger collapse

- 4 - Britain returned to the Gold standard in 1939, a full 10 years AFTER the Great Depression already started...

- 5 - The Great Depression started in the US then expanded to the whole world, not the other way around.

- 6 - "This all happened in 1932 Then the U.S. economy began to recover"
The US didnt even show signs of improvement until WWII broke out in the 1940's, by then America was still sagging in high unemployment and in levels of poverty...

2) What role did the tax cuts play? I have shown that the tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with it... In fact overzealous spending in the early 21st century caused the US debt to explode which reinforces my argument of why spending should be cut.

3) Allow me to clarify since a simple word misplacement has baffled the Pro.

Cutting spending reduces the national debt, cutting taxes increases the deficit but that is only true if spending remains the same or increases. If taxes are cut but spending is cut even further than the deficit would actually decrease.

4) Germany is a very industrial country that exports tons of goods and keeps track of their spending habits, very friendly to businesses, etc. Germany is not the country they are only through taxes like you somehow try to claim.


The Pro has completely dropped my arguments about
1) Why reducing spending for the sake of the national debt is a good thing,
2) How raising taxes could not simply offset spending,
3) How the government may not even use higher taxes to pay off the debt and may use that money on other programs,
4) That cutting taxes puts more money into the system since lower classes now have more money to spend.
5) That tax hikes does not necessarily help a country heal (
Debate Round No. 2


32no forfeited this round.


I extend my arguments :)
Debate Round No. 3


I have no more to say, I cannot spend the time con did. Good, thourough job Con. However, I still agree with the fact that cutting taxes and cutting spending is a negative thing, even when done together. If I would have changed anything, I would change my schedule, to make a powerful argument as con did. I have studied economics for 14 years, and I would explain myself better, but in this debate, I could not manaage. Forgive me for having to tend to my family and job, voters.


I thank the Con for a very interesting debate anyways :)
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 32no 4 years ago
I am against Cutting taxes and cutting spending.
Posted by Oldfrith 4 years ago
who has the BOP?
Posted by Contra 4 years ago
I agree with your side
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
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: via forfeit
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
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: Forfeit