The Instigator
cavour1
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
anarcholibertyman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Government Gridlock.

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,016 times Debate No: 15755
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

cavour1

Pro

I contend that the government is less destructive
and more effective when the presidency and
congress are controlled by different parties. In
such an administrative state, extreme spending
periods (over spending/under spending) and radical
political policies will be far less frequent.
Essentially anything that congress AND the
president pass, will be politically moderate and
generally important to the country. Expensive
programs (from either side) will be extremely hard
to pass. You may say, "Well, what if the program
is vital to economic recovery". Well obviously
they other side disagrees and so do many other
Americans. A gridlock administration would assure
that only the most popular (and hopefully
significant) policies will be enacted.

The benefits of such a gridlock are evident
throughout our country's history. You may say that
the biggest accomplishment during the Clinton era
was that the president and congress simply got out
of the way. Both parties prevented each other from
passing expensive programs which kept federal
spending relatively constant as a percentage of
GDP.

The largest average decrease of spending (4.2% per
year) in US history came from the 84th
Democrat-held congress and President Eisnehower.
On the other hand, LBJ and his democratic congress
increased spending at 11.6% a year (for obvious
reasons).

In short, unless you're a fan of exponential
expansion of government, gridlock is good.
anarcholibertyman

Con

My opponent assumes that a government is only working if it is spending less but this contention has not been backed up and as pro has the burden of proof I will allow him the next round to clarify and prove his contention.
Debate Round No. 1
cavour1

Pro

cavour1 forfeited this round.
anarcholibertyman

Con

I'll wait until the next round for my opponent to provide a sufficient opening argument and back up his claims.
Debate Round No. 2
cavour1

Pro

cavour1 forfeited this round.
anarcholibertyman

Con

anarcholibertyman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
cavour1

Pro

cavour1 forfeited this round.
anarcholibertyman

Con

anarcholibertyman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by cavour1 6 years ago
cavour1
Mainly that the stagnation of the government eventually lead to compromise between the two parties. Typically, such compromises are politically moderate and beneficial to the government. For example, during the Clinton administration, President Clinton and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R) formed a bipartisan plan to heavily reform Social Security and Medicare. The plan called for personal Social Security Accounts and the conversion of Medicare into a market-based system. Never actually happened because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Posted by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
what would you say were the benefits of divided congress during the clinton administration?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
cavour1anarcholibertymanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)