The Instigator
WilliamsP
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Dan4reason
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Democrats are more economically responsible than Republicans.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Dan4reason
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,110 times Debate No: 48481
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

WilliamsP

Pro

In this debate, I will be arguing that Democrats are more economically responsible than Republicans.

I would like to implement a few rules before we begin:

1. Proper spelling and grammar must be used.
2. Each argument must contain sources and they must be cited correctly.
3. Arguments must be sophisticated.


I will now state how this debate will be structured:

Round One: Acceptance
Round Two: Main Arguments
Round Three: Rebuttals
Round Four: Further Rebuttal
Round Five: Conclusion
Dan4reason

Con

I accept this debate. I will be arguing that Republicans are more economically responsible than democrats.
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Pro

Before we begin, I would like to define a few terms:


"responsible (r=8;G2;sp;4;nsəb ə l)

— adj (usually foll by for ) (foll by to )
1. having control or authority (over)
2. being accountable for one's actions and decisions (to): to be responsible to one's commanding officer
3. (of a position, duty, etc) involving decision and accountability
4. ( often foll by for ) being the agent or cause (of some action): to be responsible for a mistake
5. able to take rational decisions without supervision; accountable for one's own actions: a responsible adult
6. able to meet financial obligations; of sound credit" [1]


We will be utilizing definition five of "responsible."


"economically (G6;iH0;kəG2;n;4;m=8;kəl=8;, G6;ɛkə-)

— adv
1. with economy or thrift; without waste
2. with regard to the economy of a person, country, etc" [2]


Of "economically", we will utilize definition two.



Now, let's begin.




Economic Policies and Successes of the
Democratic Party

The Democratic Party has much more successful economic policies than the Republican Party. First and foremost, I will list some of the policies and then I will describe how and why they positively influence the economy:

"Democrats support a more progressive tax structure to provide more services and reduce economic inequality by making sure that the wealthiest American's pay the highest amount in taxes. Democrats support more government spending on social services while spending less on the military.
They oppose the cutting of social services, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various other welfare programs, believing it to be harmful to efficiency and social justice. Democrats believe the benefits of social services, in monetary and non-monetary terms, are a more productive labor force and cultured population, and believe that the benefits of this are greater than any benefits that could be derived from lower taxes, especially on top earners, or cuts to social services. Furthermore, Democrats see social services as essential towards providing positivefreedom, i.e. freedom derived from economic opportunity. The Democratic-led House of Representatives reinstated the PAYGO (pay-as-you-go) budget rule at the start of the 110th Congress." [3]

These policies have been proven successful. I will also list some of the successes Presidents Clinton and Roosevelt have had.

"In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans." [4]

These economic policies worked and they benefitted the country greatly. Now, I will state a fact about the FDR Presidency.

"Deficit spending had been recommended by some economists, most notably by John Maynard Keynes of Britain. The GNP was 34% higher in 1936 than in 1932 and 58% higher in 1940 on the eve of war. That is, the economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945 in 5 years of wartime.

Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when he took office to 14.3% in 1937. However, it increased slightly to 19.0% in 1938 ('a depression within a depression') and fell to 17.2% in 1939, and then dropped again to 14.6% in 1940 until it reached 1.9% in 1945 due to World War II when increased manufacturing and conscription decreased the labor supply number. Total employment during Roosevelt's term expanded by 18.31 million jobs, with an average annual increase in jobs during his administration of 5.3%." [5]

Economic Policies and Failures of the
Republican Party

The economic policies of the Republican Party have their advantages and their flaws. It is most unfortunate that there are more flaws than advantages. I will begin by talking about Herbert Hoover.

"Hoover had long been a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much government intervention would undermine long-term individuality and self-reliance, which he considered essential to the nation's future. Both his ideals and the economy were put to the test with the onset of the Great Depression.

Although Democrats at the time and for decades afterwards denounced Hoover for taking a hands-off ("laissez-faire") approach to the Depression, historians emphasize how active he actually was. Hoover said he rejected Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach, and called many business leaders to Washington to urge them not to lay off workers or cut wages." [6]


It is a common misconception that Hoover started the depression. He did not. He was an active man and proposed programs to try and remedy the issues, but he underestimated the weight of it. He misunderstood. He didn't have the capacity to deal with it. Now, I will make a point about George W. Bush's policies:

"The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2009, both in dollar terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP), due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq." [7]

This round is only for main arguments. Therefore, you will make your arguments in your next post and we will then begin making rebuttals. I await your response.

Sources

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Dan4reason

Con

Looking at the stats on this forum I can tell we have a lot of liberals. So it will be especially hard for me to make the case that Republicans are more fiscally responsible than democrats. I would first like everyone to take a look at a couple links showing that both government spending and revenue have risen consistently in the last 100 years as a percent of the GDP (1,2).

The Spend Tax Spiral Effect

The democrats tend to see the government as a tool to solve problems and don't generally like to make major cuts to spending. They often propose government solutions to problems such as healthcare, poverty, pollution, etc that often involve increasing spending. Eventually what happens is that spending starts to vastly outpace revenue. That is when the left and the right begins making demands to balance the budget.

Republicans usually support more spending cuts than tax increases and democrats support the opposite. So a compromise is reached like the compromise in the 1990s where spending is cut slightly and taxes are increased. However the result is that spending is still higher than when the spending hike started, and taxes are higher. After the compromise, spending is again increased gradually and the deficits widens again, and the process repeats. This is why we see this rise in both spending and taxes over time.

This is also a reason why some European countries have total taxes of 50% of the economy. We can agree that this cycle is unhealthy. While government spending is beneficial, people should be able to keep most of their incomes to keep a strong free market. Republicans tend to resist this Tax Spend spiral because they tend to propose spending cuts as a solution. That is the logical solution. The root reason deficits are so large is because spending keeps growing.

Competition and Free Market

The free market thrives on competition which drives economic and technological growth. These things are fostered in a competitive environment. Problems begin when democrats start weighing companies down with libraries of regulations making it hard for small businesses to do well decreasing competition.

When companies and owners are losing 50% of their incomes to taxes, there is less money for innovation and technological progress and the economy stagnates. Also there is less incentive to become successful and it is harder to get rich. Taxes kill competition and business.

Democrats tend to support taxes more than Republicans and tend to support higher corporate taxes than Republicans. Now that we have gotten the basics out of the way, lets go over the arguments from my opponent.

Democrats are more likely to support welfare
----------------------------------------------------------------
Welfare is great in small amounts and can be beneficial to people at the bottom. However, these programs have gotten so large that they are taking a large chunk of our paychecks to support. This hurts the middle class and discourages success by taking money away from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful.

Republicans support more Military spending
--------------------------------------------------------------
That is a problem for republicans. However military spending is far smaller than the democrat-supported welfare spending (3). The democrats have the bigger problem.

Clinton Tax Cuts
------------------------------------------
As I mentioned before, this is part of the Tax Spend Spiral and after this deal was reached, social spending only increased. Today, Obama proposes a 3.9 trillion dollar spending budget, the largest ever. He supports adding more taxes on top of what Clinton did to pay for new spending. We cannot let this cycle continue. Plus, many of the spending cuts only happened because of Republican pressure. Republicans had to fight to see the spending cuts that happened (5).

Bush
-----------------------------------------
Bush oversaw massive increases in spending and these spending increases were built in because of the increasing number of Social Security recipients and welfare costs. He wanted to cut this spending but did not have the political support to do so. He was also a lot more moderate than many of the Tea Party republicans today who right a lot harder for spending cuts.

He did enter a lot of wars and most of that money was sunk into Iraq which was a military blunder much like Vietnam. This is another reason for his spending increases. Reagan and Bush Sr. did not make the same mistakes he did. They oversaw spending increases but also could not muster the support to get deeper cuts. Spending is hard to cut.

Roosevelt
---------------------------------------
The level of government spending of Roosevelt according to (1) was about 10-20% of the economy during the depression much lower than today which is more like 40%. I have no problem with some government. I wonder how well we would have done if 50% of our money went to the government?

1: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
2: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com...
3: http://en.wikipedia.org...
4: http://news.xinhuanet.com...
5: http://www.cato.org...
Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Pro

Rebuttals
Some of your points are valid, but I must say that they do not support your claim. I never claimed that Democrats are always more economically responsible, but they are generally more responsible than Republicans. I have made points about how Democrats have been economically successful, unlike Republicans. I have referred to Roosevelt and Clinton, two very successful Democratic presidents. I have also referred to Hoover and Bush, two of the worst presidents in our history, who were Republicans. I have a challenge for you: Deny it. Deny the points I have made and refute all of my arguments. I believe you cannot do this. It is your duty to prove me wrong. I will admit that some Republicans - Reagan, most notably - have been very successful economically speaking. However, Democrats are, generally, the more responsible party when it comes to financing the country.



One cannot refute these facts. One cannot make a rebuttal about these truths. The points you have made may be valid, but they do not assist your stance. You claimed that, "
[M]ilitary spending is far smaller than the [D]emocrat-supported welfare spending. The [D]emocrats have a biger problem." I beg to differ. Welfare is an important issue, but one cannot ignore the military spending issue. Welfare is not necessarily a "bigger problem." In time, both will be dealt with. I will admit that the Democrats aren't the perfect party, but they are by all means much more responsible than the Republicans. You cannot ignore the failures of George W. Bush and the recession he shall be remembered for. Barack Obama isn't perfect, but he has done his best repairing the economy and creating a better world for everyone. My challenge for you is to deny this. The Republicans have been highly irresponsible, obnoxious, and hateful, unlike the Democrats. Neither party has a perfect set of values and policies, but the Democratic agenda is much more attractive than the Republican agenda.

"The [D]emocrats tend to see the government as a tool to solve problems and don't generally like to make major cuts to spending. They often propose government solutions to problems such as healthcare, poverty, pollution, etc that often involve increasing spending. Eventually what happens is that spending starts to vastly outpace revenue. That is when the left and the right begins making demands to balance the budget."

This may be true, but I assure you that this would be beneficial. Look at the numbers. Review the facts. Over the course of history, the Democrats have proven their superiority. I am not a typical Democrat and I will comprimise with Republicans and others, but I will not deny the facts. In this argument, I will not list any sources. I have made my point and will continue to strengthen it. You, however, have made hideous arguments that do not support your stance. Republicans have their flaws and their advantages, but they are by all means less responsible than the Democrats. Your points absolutely do not support your claim. Mine, however, support my stance. When you write your next argument, I hope to see more effort put into it.
Dan4reason

Con

In my last post I showed that welfare is bad for the economy and free markets are good. I also presented the spending tax cycle that tends to make government bigger and bigger hurting the economy. I will now address some of the claim made by my opponent:

Democrats are always more economically responsible, but they are generally more responsible than Republicans.

"I never claimed that Democrats are always more economically responsible, but they are generally more responsible than Republicans"

I never claimed you did. I showed in my previous post that republicans in general are more responsible because they tend to support lower spending and taxes.

"I have referred to Roosevelt and Clinton, two very successful Democratic presidents."

I pointed out that while Roosevelt did increase the size of government, he increased it to a size much smaller than today. In fact most democrats would be horrified to live in a country with the government as big as his administration. Also, he managed to get into the presidency when our country had hit the bottom. Generally, after depressions, there is going to be some recovery.

There is a certain amount of luck involved in being president. There are a lot of factor's beyond the government's control. A president may be able to make spending or tax changes of several hundred billion dollars a year but with an economy of 15 trillion, the president won't be able to control very much.

Clinton got in after the recession of 1991 which hurt his predecessor and got out right before the .com bubble burst in 2000. If he had been in during these two periods, his presidency would not have been that impressive. Reagan on the other hand, had to deal with an economy with high unemployment and extreme inflation and actually fixed it by cutting interest rates and cutting taxes.

Clinton's spending cuts were very much due to the pressure from Congressional Republicans.

"I have also referred to Hoover and Bush, two of the worst presidents in our history, who were Republicans."

Hoover was just in for bad luck. Plus, he didn't really act like a Republican. He hiked the top tax bracket from 24% to 63%. He imposed the Smoot-Holley tarriff blocking free trade. He passed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act to boost the economy. This man was not a typical Republican of that time (1).

When it comes to dealing with recessions, the Republicans have changed a lot since Hoover. In 2008, the Republicans passed the economic recovery bill under President Bush which is one reason our recession didn't turn into a depression.

Now lets talk about Bush. Bush was struck by bad luck starting with the 2000 recession and ending with the 2008 crash. He also had a recession in 2003 which against can't be proved to have been his fault. As mentioned before, Clinton got a period between recessions.

You cannot ignore the failures of George W. Bush and the recession he shall be remembered for. Barack Obama isn't perfect, but he has done his best repairing the economy and creating a better world for everyone.

You have to prove that Bush's policies led to the recession. In fact there was a democratic majority in Congress and they didn't foresee the crash either. Economic growth under Obama is on par with that of Bush discounting the great recession (2). This is surprising since there is usually a lot of economic growth after such a large fall. There was sure a rebound in the stock market.

Also keep in mind that Bush was only one president. He spend far too much on military, didn't curb spending, and while he did some tax cuts, they were not all that large. He was not the best example of a Republican.

Obama and Carter

Carter was a disaster. He became president promising economic growth and left the nation with high unemployment and inflation. I noticed that he was never mentioned. Obama's recovery has been the worst since the great depression in terms of unemployment reduction, GDP growth, and dow jones growth (1).

During his first 36 months in office, GDP growth was 1.7% per year. Reagan's recovery was 9%. Bush's 2000 economic recovery was 2.9% (1).

Income Growth Rates

My opponent provides some income growth rate statistics showing that income growth under democrats was high. However, the time you are elected president has a lot to do with these numbers. Bush got hit with two recessions and one monster recession. Clinton got in between two recessions getting lucky. Instead of providing circumstantial evidence from growth rates lets argue about economic policies. Reagan would have had higher growth rates if he had not inherited a terrible economy from Carter that was stagnating.

A better metric for seeing which party is economically responsible is to see the legislative battles today. Democrats fight for higher spending and higher taxes. For example, Obama just unveiled a new 3.9 trillion budget much larger than the 3.5 billion we have now. It includes hundreds of billions in new spending and taxes. So while democrats can sometimes propose spending cuts, they usually just increase spending over time. The Republicans in Congress have demanded dramatic spending cuts and lower taxes. One might ask why Republican presidents can't get the spending cuts they need. The answer often lies in the resistance from Democrats.

1: patriotupdate.com/articles/hoover-and-fdr-big-government-presidents-who-prolonged-the-depression/
2: http://www.appraisaleconomics.com...
3: http://www.forbes.com...
4: http://www.politico.com...
Debate Round No. 3
WilliamsP

Pro

Rebuttals & New Arguments
Let's talk about some of the worst administrations in our history, which were led by Republicans. I would like to discuss Harding, Nixon and Ford. The economy under Warren G. Harding was, surprisingly, better than I would expect.

"Some politicians recommended that Harding enact a kind of stimulus package and put soldiers to work building roads for the rapidly growing numbers of cars being driven. Harding rejected that approach for a two-fold strategy of cutting federal spending and cutting tax rates. Before his death in 1923, Harding’s program was showing signs of success. From 1920 to 1923 the federal budget was cut in half from $6.4 billion to $3.1 billion. The top tax rate was sliced during these years from 73 percent to 56 percent, and, when Harding died in 1923, his vice president, Calvin Coolidge, cut that rate further to 25 percent." [1]

The source, however, continues, "How then should we assess Harding’s presidency—which launched an economic boom but which also saw two major scandals? We can say Harding was successful when he slashed the role of government through cuts in federal spending and in tax rates. And we can say he failed when he expanded the role of government by creating a Veterans’ Bureau and by maintaining federal control of western oil lands. Harding is an underrated president because he is being ranked by those who overrate the capabilities of the federal government."

I will now continue with Nixon.


"In August the government had made a new plan for the economy with rather extreme measures, measures which would later be dubbed “Nixon Shocks”. The plan was announced on August 15, 1971 in a national televised address. Nixon declared that the gold window would be closed and that gold would no longer be transferable to US dollars. This created an 8 percent devaluation to the dollar, as compared to other of the times major currencies, stimulating American exports and the domestic economy. A 90 day freeze on wages and prices and the establishment of the cost-of-living council was also announced. Unfortunately he neglected to inform any allies beforehand, causing some more than minor problems between the countries.

When 1972 came around, unemployment had continued to rise, with 2 million more Americans out of jobs than in 1969. The administration decided it was time to stimulate the economy with a $25.2 billion budget. In the election year, the money supply was expanded by 9 percent. This caused many to accuse Nixon and [Arthur] Burns of making a deal so that Nixon could win the upcoming election and Burns to keep his government position. Both men denied the accusation." [2]

The economy under Nixon was disasterous. This you cannot deny.

Ford:


"Ford, who was sworn in as president on Aug. 9, 1974, after the resignation of Richard Nixon, faced inflation that was already surging at a 10.9 percent annual rate in that month. It was thrust into overdrive by the OPEC oil embargo of 1974 and the elimination of wage/price controls instituted in the Nixon administration." [3]

Now, I will make rebuttals:

"One might ask why Republican presidents can't get the spending cuts they need. The answer often lies in the resistance from Democrats."

I beg to differ. It is often the REPUBLICAN resistance in Congress that prevents incumbent Demcrats from repairing a broken economy. Look at what is going on in Congress right now. Barack Obama is fighting for his country and wishes for cooperation. Instead of cooperation, he gets resistance.

"Also keep in mind that Bush was only one president. He spend far too much on military, didn't curb spending, and while he did some tax cuts, they were not all that large. He was not the best example of a Republican."

In fact, Bush is the PERFECT example of a Republican. The policies promoted by Republicans today are nearly identical to Bush's. Mitt Romney's entire campaign wasn't based on reform and innovation: It was a very Conservative campaign. He promoted Bush's policies and he wished to continue them.

"Economic growth under Obama is on par with that of Bush discounting the great recession (2). This is surprising since there is usually a lot of economic growth after such a large fall. There was sure a rebound in the stock market."

The wounds of the nation are to deep and the support from Republicans is too minimal. Barack Obama is a great president and would be even greater if only he had the support of the other party.

I await my opponent's response.

Sources
[1] http://www.fee.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://money.cnn.com...
Dan4reason

Con

Republicans Past and President

One things about this debate I have not mentioned is that parties evolve. In fact the democratic and republican parties of 50 years ago are very different than today. The Republicans at Harding's time were isolationist and did not believe in military intervention. Today, Republicans have a reputation of being more aggressive. Ronald Reagan transformed the Republican party making it more conservative and more military focused. The Tea Party has also shifted the party to the right fiscally since Bush.

The resolution is that Democrats ARE more economically responsible than Republicans. So my opponent needs to spend a little more time on the Republicans of today, not the ones of 30 to 40 years ago.

Why Big Government Hurts Economy

I think that people are lazy by nature. If you didn't have to excel at your job to get your pay, most people won't do it. If a business does not have to save customers money to earn a good profit, then it won't. This is why private competition is so important. When there is competition you have to do better than the other guys, and they are trying to do better than you. This becomes a race to make the customers happy. When this happens products are better, cheaper, and technology improves.

When we have big government, there are a lot of government programs and unfortunately there is no competition for them, so they don't have to improve over time and become efficient. For example the Obamacare website cost 317 million dollars to build. Republican Senator Tom Coburn found 30 billion dollars in wasteful spending and we all know there is much more where that came from. The National Endowment of the Humanities spent 1 million promoting romance novels as one example (1).

Private enterprise on the other hand has given us incredible advanced in digital technology with computer power doubling every 18 months. It has given us better and cheaper hybrid cars. The enormous advances during the industrial revolution is proof of the incredible power of private enterprise.

One example of competition is wages. In our economy, those with fewer skills earn less than those with greater skills. If you don't have any real skills, you will probably be earning less than $20,000 a year. If you do have in demand skills you can earn over $60,000 a year. This is one way our free market encourages people to learn skills. However, government has been transferring trillions from skilled to unskilled workers encouraging people not to try as hard and making the American dream harder to get for everyone else.

Democrat's Socialism and the Middle Class

People in the middle class pay on average 30% of their incomes in taxes in some form or another (2). So if you are making $60,000, you are really earning $40,000. The middle class is getting squeezed to death and having 1/3 of their money taken from them and this is not helping. 85% of the middle class say it is getting difficult for them to maintain their standards of living (3). Socialism hurts the middle class.

European Socialism

While America is highly socialist, Europe is even more. Government revenue is on average 40% of their economies (4). Yet the average income in the US is on average 44% higher than that in the EU (5). Unemployment in the EU tends to stay around 9% and that is with all the people in their vast welfare and unemployment programs who are not officially unemployed (6). In the US, 6% unemployment is considered high.

The point I am trying to make is that high welfare spending doesn't work. Because of a lack of competition government brings economies generally perform worse. Maybe big government is the reason the US economy has been so bad over the last decade. We are getting an economy just like Europe with our ever growing government (2).

Executive Blame

Not only does my opponent like to attack the Republicans of the past but he seems to assume that the executive is to blame when things go bad in the economy. The problem is that the executive is not the one who makes legislation. It is Congress that does this. So the president is not entirely responsible for what government does. In the 80s the executive was Republican and in the 90s it was democrat. But in the 80s Congress was democrat and in the 90s it was republican. And as I mentioned before, there are a lot of things out of the government's control.

When evaluating the policies of each party it is best to look at what each party is proposing in Congress right now rather than look at what happened during presidencies of the past. When looking at performance it is better to look at the economic affect of socialism (more democrat) vs. capitalism (more republican).

Budget Battles

Republicans have been fighting for deep spending cuts in Congress. Just look at the Paul Ryan's plan that want to cut government spending from 22% to 19% and is heavily opposed by democrats for cutting our socialist welfare spending. Currently government spending stands at 3.5 trillion and as mentioned before Obama wants to raise that to 3.9 trillion with 1 trillion of new taxes over the next 10 years. With a projected revenue of 3 trillion in 2014 this would raise our deficit from 600 billion to 900 billion reversing much of out deficit cuts.

Democrats fight for more spending and taxes while republicans fight for less. Big spending and taxes hurts the free market and makes our economy worse. Lets go over some of opponent's specific arguments.

When I pointed out that it is democrats who often keep republican presidents from cutting presidents my opponent said:

"It is often the REPUBLICAN resistance in Congress that prevents incumbent Demcrats from repairing a broken economy. Look at what is going on in Congress right now. Barack Obama is fighting for his country and wishes for cooperation. Instead of cooperation, he gets resistance. "

As mentioned before, Obama's solution is to raise taxes in a struggling economy and increase deficits, and government spending. As mentioned before, these only make an economy worse. And plus, when interest rates go back up, the interest from the increased national debt will kill us. Interest on the national debt is 230 billion per year and is estimated to rise to 830 billion in ten years with no sign of slowing (10). Republicans need to work harder to cut more spending, and not raise it.

"In fact, Bush is the PERFECT example of a Republican."

Bush fought a lot more wars than the typical Republican president. He also didn't focus on spending cuts as much as the Republican of the 90s or today do. As mentioned before, he did run into bad luck with three recessions that have not been shown to be his fault.

Ford and Nixon

My piece about executive blame applies to these two presidents. The inflation that occurred during this era was because people expected a continuous rise in the price of goods, so they bought more increasing demand, and prices. Increased prices led to demand for higher wages pushing up prices even more (12). The recession happened because the post WWII economic bubble finally burst. The 1973 oil crisis and increased demand for steel causing a steel crisis also contributed (11).

Wage and price controls removed by Nixon are harmful because they create shortages. For example, if you artificially make oil prices low, the increased demand for it will create oil shortages.

Not Obama's Fault

My opponent argues that our economic problems are not Obama's fault. This is a double standard. Whenever things go bad for a Republican president, it is his fault. But when things do bad for a democrat suddenly my opponent selectively realizes that the executive is not entirely responsible for all of government.

1: http://freebeacon.com...
2: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com...
3: http://billmoyers.com...
4: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu...
5: http://www.politifact.com...
6: http://rwer.wordpress.com...
7: http://budget.house.gov...
8: http://www.nytimes.com...
9: http://www.heritage.org...
10: http://money.cnn.com...
11: http://en.wikipedia.org...
12: http://economics.about.com...
Debate Round No. 4
WilliamsP

Pro

Conclusion
My opponent has proven himself to be a very knowledgeable person of this specific topic. His arguments were highly sophisticated and complex. I give him that. Therefore, I urge the voters to give my opponent the "reliable sources" and "most convincing arguments" points. Before you vote, ask yourself: Who is truly correct? Whose evidence is more truthful? Who is the true victor of this debate? These are only a few of the questions you should consider before voting. I remain convinced that my side is correct, but when the votes turn out, maybe my view will change. For clarification, I am NOT conceding at all. I am, however, acknowledging that I have not put much effort into this debate and that my opponent deserves certain credits. It has been fun debating this topic and I look forward to the beginning of the voting period.
Dan4reason

Con

Dan4reason forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
Both of you are exceptional, and should continue to be so. Dan4Reason's originality in explaining the concepts was much appreciated, his ability to analyse was straight to the point and his knowledge in the field of politics was something to be reckoned with. Williamsp's humility and rationality was admirable as pointed out by his conclusion and his way of debating, especially for a 14 year old, back then I was completely clueless and an arrogant prick, for the most part.

Please don't stop what you're doing. You're doing humanity a huge favour in my opinion.
Posted by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
Both of you are exceptional, and should continue to be so. Dan4Reason's originality in explaining the concepts was much appreciated, his ability to analyse was straight to the point and his knowledge in the field of politics was something to be reckoned with. Williamsp's humility and rationality was admirable as pointed out by his conclusion and his way of debating, especially for a 14 year old, back then I was completely clueless and an arrogant prick, for the most part.

Please don't stop what you're doing. You're doing humanity a huge favour in my opinion.
Posted by Dan4reason 2 years ago
Dan4reason
I think that the strength of my opponent's arguments matters a lot more than their originality. That is what I want this debate to be about.
Posted by Jnoorda123 2 years ago
Jnoorda123
It would be nice if you did a little bit of creating your own opinion and less quoting everyone else.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
I would like to point out that debate.org had a few formatting issues. Therefore, my argument looks differently than it should.
Posted by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Benshapiro
Define economically responsible because that term is open to interpretation.
Posted by Dufflepud 2 years ago
Dufflepud
the way you've written this is such that Con would have to provide only a single counterexample (i.e. a given Republican that is more economically responsible than a given Democrat) to prove their point. I would re write this, and I'd also provide a definition for "economically responsible" as Topkek points out.
Posted by Topkek 2 years ago
Topkek
It would be nice if you defined what "Economically responsible" means.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by etherealvoyager 2 years ago
etherealvoyager
WilliamsPDan4reasonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better conduct as Con forfeited his final round. Even if he has nothing substantial to say, it would still be DDO courtesy to at least acknowledge his presence. Spelling and grammar were tied. On a day where I feel more strict, and nit-picky, I would have given S&G to Pro, as Con made several basic errors. However, basic errors can be tolerated, so I will give this one a tie. Con gave a number of reasons why the economic principles of the Republican Party were more responsible than the principles of the Democratic Party. A lot of them were, to say the least, highly disputable. I completely disagree with his reasoning in almost all instances. Yet, Pro did not really refute them to a point that would make his case seem convincing. Con was able to attack Pro's arguments much more convincingly. Sources go to Con; he used a wide range of sources.
Vote Placed by tyler3923 2 years ago
tyler3923
WilliamsPDan4reasonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Democratic policies destroy small businesses and jobs and make people dependant on the government. Its a genius way to get votes, but in terms of fiscal responsibility... democrats fail miserably.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
WilliamsPDan4reasonTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture warrants loss of conduct. The debate was back and forth accusations of which president succeed and fail. Pro made several prominent examples, namely Nixon, Reagan, Harding, Hoover and the infamous Bush. His argument revolves around presidents, blaming them as the economy descends into madness. Con's argument, was nicely linked with his introduction, and his last round Rebut was a very compelling one.Con made comparisons, how congress mattered at a time of economic uncertainty and so forth. Pro's arguments, can be easily disapproved by shifting the blame from the executives to something else. Con did just that, in his executive blame point. Con wins just by a single point, as the president battle was equal for both. Pro made a statistic on income growth, but was refuted by Con's elaboration on variable consideration, Pro made weaker rebuttals, as he shifts the attention elsewhere,using bush as a scapegoat to refute con's point. Pro also dropped Welfare and Defense spending.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
WilliamsPDan4reasonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: I would have tied the conduct points, but Con forfeited the last round. They are tied when it comes to spelling and grammar and convincing arguments, for they bother made great arguments. Con used better sources and more sources, so he gets the points for that.