The Instigator
artuis
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
JTSmith
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Democrats Don't Understand Economics

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,531 times Debate No: 5287
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

artuis

Pro

Although, this may sound like a blatant attack on the Democrats, this debate is not an attack but an observation.

Democrats seem to believe taxing the rich or those more fortunate just sounds like a good idea, but fail to address the ripple effects it will have on the economy. You don't just take away tax dollars from people or entities without them missing their cash and a bit upset at the same time.

Furthermore, Democrats don't seem to grasp what "futures" or speculation in investments work, because if they did, they would see that certain decision like say "Oil Drilling" has an immediate effect on prices. They refuse to acknowledge that drilling will bring relief, however, they don't realize that just saying the words, "Drill, Drill, Drill!" will bring down gas prices. Why do you think prices are falling for oil right now, demand is down, and everyone is talking about alternative forms of energy, and drilling that speculators and analyst are taking all that into account in the markets.

Isn't interesting that President Bush first announced the executive ban on oil drilling and oil fell nearly 10 dollars in the next three days, for that matter started falling as soon as he held the news conference.

Democrats don't seem to get this aspect of the economy or just ignore or it, since it doesn't help them.

Anyways this is just the tip of the iceberg, so this is my conclusion, Democrats don't understand economics.
JTSmith

Con

Lets talk about republican economic plans and democratic republican plans.
(note: these are the 2008 agendas)

Republicans:
-Give American companies huge tax breaks
-Give tax breaks to the wealthier americans
(note: Sen. McCain will raise taxes on the middle class by cutting the bush tax cuts)
-Expand the US's involvement in the global economy
-Provide americans with more stimulus checks for economic relief

Democrats:
-Give the middle class tax cuts (95% of middle-income americans)
-Manage the economy' s reliance on foreign trade
-Halt the outsourcing of jobs
-Stop the bush tax breaks for large companies and only award them to companies who have managed their company according to american interests (eg: companies that have not outsourced jobs)
-Provide 20,000 new jobs via alternative fuel research and production.
-Award americans with 500-1000 dollar tax credits.

Now that that has been clarified, lets take a look at the effects of each plan on our current economy.

Republican:
Republicans:
[Give American companies huge tax breaks]
This is the same thing Bush has been doing for the last 8 yrs, but it has not bolstered our economy. The truth is, these companies are taking the extra profits and stuffing them in the pockets of the top dogs. This has not helped the economy at all.

[Give tax breaks to the wealthier americans
(note: Sen. McCain will raise taxes on the middle class by cutting the bush tax cuts)]
Republicans subscribe to an economic theory that suggests the "wealth will trickle down" to the poor. Lets make the wealthier, wealthier and that will make to poor wealthier. This is poor logic and a false notion. This actually does what it been doing the last 8 years and throughout history. It widens the gap between rich and poor. This is a republican theory that has never worked. Furthermore, how can Sen. McCain bolster the economy when he takes more money out of the hands of middle class americans?

[Expand the US's involvement in the global economy]
News flash. The Global Economy is a disaster! More invlovement in the global economy would not increase profits. It would do two things.
1. It would increase the amount of jobs that are outsourced, thereby taking more jobs from america, which will increase the unemployment rate, which will pull down the economy.
2. The United States (believe it or not) has suffered the least in this global recession. Even China is suffering economically worse than we are. Increased American involvement in the global economy will bring us down, by trading with other economically supressed nations. This will only hurt as well.

[Provide americans with more stimulus checks for economic relief]
This will create short-term relief. It will bump up the economy for a month or too and then it will slide down again. This is not a permanent solution and it will cost billions of dollars.
(note: John McCain also wants to continue the war in Iraq as well as provide check to americans to pay for their healthcare. The cost of these annually, not including the stimulus checks? 125 Billion Dollars every year)

Now lets take a look at the Democrats.

[Give the middle class tax cuts (95%)]
This will put more money in the pockets of average americans, which will be spent, which will bolster the economy.

[Manage the economy's reliance of foreign trade]
America's reliance on foreign trade needs to be cut back because of the current state of the global economy. What will happen if we do this??? It wont hurt our economy. It will grow it. America will have to rely on itself for many more things then before. New companies will produce new goods. These companies will provide new jobs. America will become a global center for innovation and a leader in alternative fuel production. American money will stay in American and it will grow and charge the economy back up. By trading internally instead of globally, our money stays here and more jobs are created, which will provide americans with a decent income.

[Halt the outsourcing of jobs]
We lose thousands of jobs a year to foreign countries. This needs to stop. It is taking jobs from hard-working americans, which is keeping money out of american pockets and taking money out of our economy.

[Stop the bush tax breaks for large companies and only award them to companies who have managed their company according to american interests (eg: companies that have not outsourced jobs)]
This will motivate companies to keep jobs here in America. Companies outsource jobs because its cheaper and it increases their profits. If these same companies can get tax breaks by keeping jobs in america than they will be much more willing to quit outsourcing these jobs.

[Provide 20,000 new jobs view alternative fuel research and production.]
New jobs means more money!

[Award americans with 500-1000 dollar tax credits]
Comparable to the republican stimulus checks, these tax credits will provide temorary but not permanent relief.

In summary, the democrats plans for the economy hold just as much (if not more) merit than the republicans.
In closing I would like to give a few examples of democratic presidents who did wonders for the economy.

Bill Clinton- presided over what was arguable the most prosperous time in American history.
Franklin D. Roosevelt- brought the united states out of the depression when republican Herbert Hoover was unable to
Woodrow Wilson - saw the united states out of the recession that was created by republican William Taft
Harry S. Truman - presided over the fifties, some of the most econocally successful times in American history.

These democrats understood the economy very well...
I guess Democrats DO understand the economy!
Debate Round No. 1
artuis

Pro

artuis forfeited this round.
JTSmith

Con

Since my opponent did not post an argument this round...
I will sit here and wait patiently
...silently hoping that you will vote for con!
Debate Round No. 2
artuis

Pro

artuis forfeited this round.
JTSmith

Con

Well this debate was a complete flop...
Oh well...
Vote CON!!!
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
This is a bad debate topic. A better one would have been "Barrack Obama" does not understand economics.

Points could have been
1. NAFTA
2. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
3. Windfall tax on oil profits
4. Hosing the wealthiest 5%
5. Blaming a president for the state of the economy when the real problem has been lack of oversite and the Federal reserve primarily Greenspan former chairman.
6. And I could go on and on.

If anyone wishes to debate me on these, please do not hesitate to mention it to me.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Er... It's a specific subset of Libertarian, called an Austrian.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
I heard there are these really batty people that tend to know a lot about economics, Libertarians I think they're called.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"This said, I was using the color of the sky metaphorically and I don't believe such scientific distinctions are important in this case."

That's not my position. I regret to inform you that you missed the bulls-eye :o
Posted by mikehughes8 8 years ago
mikehughes8
Technically, Rezzealaux is correct, the sky isn't actually blue. Light and its interaction with the atmosphere makes it appear blue to the naked eye (at least during the daytime). This said, I was using the color of the sky metaphorically and I don't believe such scientific distinctions are important in this case.

In response to theLwerd's comments, I agree that the global economy is having a large affect on the U.S. economy. However, increasing taxes on the rich will never be the answer. We already have a very progressive tax system. The top 20% in this country already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. Increasing these taxes even more will only provide more encouragement for companies to look outward and perhaps close down completely to move overseas.. A company with less of a tax burden is much more likely to invest locally and remain in the United States. This isn't a complicated concept. More companies moving overseas = less "good" jobs for the middle class. In fairness, this is only one piece of the puzzle. Corporations can pay lower wages and deal with much less regulation overseas. I believe the labor market here in the U.S. is going to have to tolerate lower wages to stay competitive. We are back to the concept of "Supply and Demand" again. Eventually there will be a sort of international wage homogeneity which will occur somewhere in the middle.
At any rate, the market will ultimately determine the price of labor. Government run schools, health programs, and redistribution of wealth are not the answer. The market always proves itself to be more efficient in the long run. Government has its place but it should be limited otherwise our country will become more and more socialist.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"Do I need a source to tell me the sky is blue?"

Yeah, you do. Because it AINT BLUE :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
And by the way, who's fault is it that it's no longer beneficial to invest in America? I seem to remember minimum wages and other regulations that make this an unfavorable place to invest in exploding in the "progressive" movement... which, though originally bipartisan, has all it's remnant eggs in the Democratic basket.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Hughes, I was joking :P
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
This debate is an obvious win for the Pro (on this site).

But just for some clarification: Simply because the Democrats have a DIFFERENT approach to economics, does not mean that they don't UNDERSTAND economics. The ideology behind Democratic economics is to build from the ground up. For instance, Republicans seem to think that by giving tax breaks to the wealthy, they will in turn take that money and invest in our nation (factories, equipment, research, etc.). But the fact of the matter is that people no longer have to invest in America nor is it beneficial to them, thus they decide to go overseas. "The investments trickle out, rather than down."

We live in a global economy now. The Democrats recognize that therefore PEOPLE are our greatest asset. Because of this, they want to ensure mass health, education, etc. That is the Democratic strategy. Their biggest concern is not the number of jobs but rather the QUALITY of those jobs. Better jobs (instead of being okay with the lower class just working at fast food joints) means a growing middle class. A growing middle class = the heart of the American economy.
Posted by artuis 8 years ago
artuis
I wouldn't worry about them, it's typical liberal banter. They miss the real point and latch on to small little issues and hope they come out looking clever. Besides I should be more careful when I write, however, it was late at night.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
artuisJTSmithTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made awful points. In fact, his argument showed exactly what pro was supposed to prove: Democrats are not good at economics. Anyone versed in economics knows that taxing the rich, protectionist tariffs, and welfare type programs all have major unintended consequences. (this is about incentives and specialization). Unfortunatley, Con gets the points because pro did forfeited and did not respond to his awful argument.
Vote Placed by advidiun 8 years ago
advidiun
artuisJTSmithTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ANSmith 8 years ago
ANSmith
artuisJTSmithTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
artuisJTSmithTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JTSmith 8 years ago
JTSmith
artuisJTSmithTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07