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

Fiscal conservatism and private business is our only way to prosper and get out of this recession.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,064 times Debate No: 24990
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




There isn't a single economic model anywhere that shows that government "investing" yields long term economic growth. Fairness is not an American value. Reducing taxes and cutting government spending will increase the overall wealth of America which is not finite, but in only being constrained by inefficiency. Optimally, taxes would be 0% plus a marginal, equal distribution investment by all in order maintain security and infrastructure. The government rarely achieves anything by investing. We are held hostage by such statements that investing in education will yield better results, or investing in clean energy will benefit this country. Almost all successful investments come from the private sector as eloquently demonstrated by companies such as x-prize.


I accept this debate. I will support the idea that we should:

Through government invest in a robust infrastructure, and ensure equal opportunity so that a strong foundation for the private market is made and all citizens can fulfill their dreams. Gov't should engage in reform so that gov't is more simple and efficient, and protects consumers and provides greater stability.

I await your arguments.

Debate Round No. 1


I'm not sure if we are actually agreeing. Here I have identified hundreds of Federal Programs to be eliminated which would save us trillions.


Oh yeah, I'm sorry, but forums and other pages with arguments do not count as arguments themselves. Same goes with videos, as DDO would generally agree.

We are supposed to usually just present our case in the round itself.

Want to restart this debate and get this debate deleted?
Debate Round No. 2


Ok, I wrote that so I will rewrite it here:
The first step to fix this country is to immediately slash federal government spending. Although this will send a shock through the entire economic system, it is a necessary shock. When the system is artificially propped up, there will be an impact from that false pressure. The approach that we take today where every program begins the budget year with a necessary 10% increase is self-defeating. There are no checks and balances and no accountability. There must be hundreds if not thousands of federal agencies that were originally intended (usually driven by emotion) to do good for some slice of the population; agencies which we don't even remember their original purpose; and lastly, agencies that fail to actually do the good that they intended. The public sector, service oriented good intended agencies repeatedly have failed to provide (except for a few exceptions).
So start with what the federal government was established to do: defend the country and the population. This means a military to defend against foreign attacks and to maintain interstate law and order. After that program is reviewed (and it does need review) and funded appropriately, you then have a bottoms up budget design.

Social Security is not going to be around in the near future . I'll pay into this abomination that has become the private sectors baby boomer's retirement fund, and I'll try to fund my own retirement. I have to do both. But please, while I do both, stop spending and printing money so what I am actually saving has some value down the road. So yes, reform social security. We don't need to give money to people that don't need it. Sorry, if you don't need it, you don't get it. I don't care if you paid into it. So did I and so am I, but we all know I am not going to see it. Please don't have our younger generation of new workers entering the work force pay into this social security that is giving money to wealthy senior citizens. We must stop income redistributions. Especially stop sending SSI insurance to young people who are "disabled" from depression or anxiety. Please, don't get me started here. It's the worst way to help them. Cut off welfare, food stamps and unemployment for anyone using them longer than 3 months. You would be amazed how much communities will help each other and how charitable this nation is. But it is hard to be charitable when all of your money is already being inefficiently transferred by the federal government to those that don't even need it or who are unwilling to work. There are almost 400 million people in America. 50 million pay federal tax, 80 million receive money from the government.

You can review the 441 federal agencies that can be cut although not all of them fit so refer to my link in my previous argument. I beg anyone to make a case as to why our Federal Government should be funding these agencies. I was very mindful about these so I am sincerely looking for feedback.


Thanks for your argument.


R1: Eliminate Government

Your plan has some shortcomings. Your plan basically eliminates the federal government, including several very important agencies. Some important agencies that would be eliminated include:

U.S. Mint
Census Bureau

Many programs, including many you mentioned, should be eliminated. But cutting the arm because the finger is broke doesn't solve the problem in the best way possible.

Markets succeed when smart government empowers and protects all citizens and enhances opportunity and freedom through mutual responsibility, and when there is a strong infrastructure.

Your plan reduces our liberty because it does nothing to invest and rebuild America's infrastructure which sets the foundation to allow Americans to flourish.

Your plan reduces our freedom by denying others a fair shot at success.

Your plan in essence is unfair because it does not require a balanced approach. You cut gov't radically, but those who have the most to share to pitch and help the common good get off with no helping hand.

Ultimately, your plan radically eliminates most government. It denies Americans the liberty to have a strong liberal market. Those who can contribute the most give nothing else. In America we have the principle of empathy to help others succeed and become self-nurturant. Your plan goes against this core American principle, and also goes against the principle of common responsibility, by letting some contribute little, and some others sacrificing all, while putting the American Dream behind by preventing a solution for ensuring equality of opportunity and a more level playing field.

R2: Our Retirement Future

I actually support private accounts instead of social security, so this point is not really relevant.

R3: Other Social Welfare Programs

The problem is that these programs are small. I fully agree that welfare should be cut, and replaced with an expanded EITC.

However, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) has a multiplier of 1.84 for every $1 spent. And in current economic times like these, you cannot cut such essential programs for the American people.

The budget reduction committee, the Bowles-Simpson Committee, ruled out any cuts to the SNAP program, as 97% of payments are at the correct amount, 99% of recepients are under the poverty line, and once the economy is growing strong again, the assistance rate will fall to 1995 levels. [1]

You didn't provide proof that 80 million receive money from the gov't and 50 million pay income taxes.

Unemployment insurance should be a state power to administer and fund.

My Arguments

I basically think we should reform government and 1) empower people and protect their individual liberties, and 2) allow the market to prosper while benefiting society as a whole.

My plan:

Medicare for All

To prosper, first we need Medicare for All, which would save about $1,000 dollars a person, and be used to contribute to broad economic growth.

Medicare for All would cut health care inflation so that people can realize their true compensation. So, wages would better correlate with productivity gains, and allow the liberal market to prosper.

Medicare for All would cut health care inflation. In Taiwan, the rate of health care inflation dropped to 2% annually. [2]

Equal Opportunity

We need to allow citizens from all backgrounds have the chance to live free. By ensuring equal opportunity, you get broad prosperity, and give every American the chance to fulfill their dreams in the liberal market.

Also, we need progressive school vouchers, which would encourage wealthy schools to compete for poorer children, which would go a huge way in paving the way for greater economic mobility, and together with a strong, innovative economy and a strong education system, you get strong economic mobility which in turn means a protected and authentic American Dream.

Simplifying Government

Yes, I do agree we should seek out the efficiencies in government, by eliminating some programs and ending duplicated and ineffective programs. The GAU has an annual report on this that would be smart to follow. [3]

The tax system should also be simplified to lower compliance costs and raise revenues and increase fairness.

Regulations should be simplified as much as possible, and introduce principle based regulation to make regulations more effective and fair.

Modern Infrastructure

By rebuilding America by investing money in our transportation infrastructure alone with $600 billion, it would create 7 million jobs. [4] We could also spend more money on basic scientific research.

Expand Free Trade

This would allow us to export more and therefore increase GDP, which naturally creates more jobs in the process and sustains a strong economy.

Green Retrofit Initiative

This proposal would create a least 1 million jobs by modernizing homes and properties. The upfront costs would be paid for through the savings after the retrofit. It would make America have lower emissions, a cleaner environment, stronger economy, more jobs, and higher savings for families.

Expand EITC

The EITC should be expanded to act as a wage supplement for the middle class as well. The supplement would decline incrementally up the income scale. We could pay for it through other various cuts in the budget.

Supplement-----Initial Income-----Total Income

$7,500 ---------->$20,000 ------->$27,500
$5,000 ---------->$30,000 ------->$35,000
$2,500 ---------->$40,000 ------->$42,500
$500 ---------->$48,000 ------->$48,500
$0 ----------> $50,000 ------->$50,000

As you can see, (starting at $20,000) the benefit is reduced by $250 every $1,000 earned, or every $2,000 in additional income results in a cut of $500 in the wage supplement. Robert Reich, who proposed this plan and cut taxes to 10% for those making $50,000-$90,000, thought that this would cost about $420 billion (adjusted for benefits). [7]

Paying for it:

1) Cut other spending:

- Child care entitlement to states
- Payments to states for child care and development block grant
- Child tax credit
- AMT tax liability
- Making Work Pay credit
- Low Income Energy Assistance
- Housing Assistance
- Various minor payments
- Cut Defense Spending by 25%

Would save $317.6 billion [5]

- End earmarks
- Cut federal workforce by 10%
- Cut defense procurement by 15%
- Close 1/3rd of overseas military bases
- Farm subsidies reform

These measures would save $200 billion a year. [6]

Total savings are $517.6 billion, or a net savings of $97.6 billion and the benefits include;

- More simple, efficient government
- 10% income tax on income from $50,000- $90,000
- Expanded EITC, effective anti-poverty program
- Zero tax increases


Your proposal shreds the social safety net that has allowed millions of Americans to better survive the crisis. Your proposal also has no key proposals for growth.

My proposal would expand free trade increasing the savings of families and individuals, the EITC would act as a wage supplement that would also cut poverty and increase the growth of the economy. Efficiencies and cuts are made so that government is more efficient. Medicare for All would massively help the economy. And progressive school vouchers would help ensure equal opportunity. Ultimately, all these benefit the economy from the poorer and middle income households, allowing them to pay off their debts and consume more, which allows the nation to prosper as a whole.








[7] Reich, Robert. After-Shock. 129-130. Print.

Debate Round No. 3


patrickdengler forfeited this round.


My arguments are extended.
Debate Round No. 4


patrickdengler forfeited this round.


Suprised about how much I've changed my views since I started this debate. Regardless of that,

Vote Contra
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 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: FF.