The Instigator
Maryland_Kid
Pro (for)
Tied
9 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Con (against)
Tied
9 Points

Government Spending to Help the Economy is a Waste of Money

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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,767 times Debate No: 36626
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Maryland_Kid

Pro

Spending for the economy should be done by the private sector where there is competition and personal involvement.

We are spending 4.1 million dollars per job [1] to get small if any improvement. [2] Green energy companies have lost profits and some have gone out of business. [3] The labor participation rate has gone down ever 2003. [4] Energy sources are still mainly coming from petroleum, natural gas and coal. [5] In conclusion, there is no correlation between government spending, government spending and economic growth. [6][7]

[1]http://www.aei-ideas.org...

[2]http://data.bls.gov...

[3]http://blog.heritage.org...

[4] http://data.bls.gov...

[5]http://www.eia.gov...

[6]

[7]
Duncan

Con

A little economics lesson for you kid. John Maynard Keynes, a world class economist, reasoned that government intervention could stimulate demand for labor during a recession and end it. Here's how it works, but I might not have it word for word. As the government spends, it gives money to others. They use that money too, and the receivers of that money also pass it on. The government receives taxes from this cycle and the money begins flowing again. Once money begins flowing again, the idea of flowing available money appeals to some entrepreneurs and companies, who now need laborers, who are currently unemployed. They rehire the workers and unemployment decreases. The employment raising ends the recession. Boom. Not a waste of money now, is it? The whole cycle has to start with the Government spending. Your move,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 1
Maryland_Kid

Pro

Government spending doesn't really help the economy. In fact, it usually makes it worse. It takes money away from people who earned it and gives it to people who don't deserve it or use it poorly. Now, this doesn't mean all government spending is bad, after all we need the roads, but it turns out it's better that the free market handle it.

Infrastructure:
The facts are that the really Liberal states like New Jersey spend the most on roads, but see little improvement. Mississippi spends very little, but sees a lot of improvement. This is not saying we shouldn't spend some money on roads and buildings, because obviously we need them, but spending on them like the people on the Left is not going to do much.[1]

Welfare:
We've spent $15 Million dollars since President LBJ and there is no improvement on the poverty rate. In fact, it's gotten worse. We're climbing back up to the same poverty level since 1964 when the program started. The best way to handle the poor is to have free market charities support them and help them find work. At least it's money that they are personally choosing to give rather than the government forcing them to pay higher taxes. [2]

Education:
There is no correlation between more spending and better performance.[3]

Government Spending Should Be Done Mostly By the Private Sector:
The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found out that the more government spends on things, the less private businesses or people spend on them like education. [4] The CATO Insitute finds out that Private GDP goes up when government spending goes down. [5]

[1]http://reason.org...

[2]http://www.deseretnews.com...

[3] http://rossieronline.usc.edu...

[4]http://research.stlouisfed.org...

[5]http://www.cato.org...
Duncan

Con

The recession can only end if the government begins spending again. Yes, the process can take a long time, but what is the alternative? You haven't addressed the Keynesian system yet. On another note, you have said that Government spending takes money away from people who earned it and gives it to those who don't, and by your profile, you must be speaking of your arch nemesis, the 40%. Welfare is not a waste of time. You fail to understand that unemployed people don't want to be unemployed, they look for jobs but none are available. Without welfare those people would literally die, being unable to afford food, water or shelter. I don't think that saving lives is a waste of time. Do you? Oh, and taking taxes isn't spending. So don't say it's spending. Your idea that charities can support almost half the country is a horrid mix of capitalism and communism. You would defend the rich, but expect the middle classes to be selfless and donate. A true Romney supporter, that's you. I'll see you next round,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 2
Maryland_Kid

Pro

Keynesian Economics or the government getting involved in the economy through spending and intervention [1] does not make the economy better. The government's money comes from people who work to people who are failing in the free market. If their job isn't working out for them, they can get or start another one. It fails. [2] The money that is given to failing businesses [2] [3] [4] and individuals who are underemployed usually isn't spend well. There is a lot of fraud, [4] but most importantly, free money doesn't give a prerogative to work. There isn't really a good example of government spending more to get back an economy. The New Deal, bailouts, welfare, and the Stimulus bill of 2009 didn't bring back the economy; [2] the free market did with cutting regulations [6] and taxes [7]. It gives more flexibility. The people spend it better because they are interested in using it wisely and know the best way to use it rather than some politician.

[1]http://www.economicshelp.org...

[2] http://www.forbes.com...

[3]http://connection.ebscohost.com...

[4]http://online.wsj.com...

[5]http://www.capitalisminstitute.org...

[6]http://www.forbes.com...

[7]http://www.moneychimp.com...

My opponent did not cite any sources and used the ad hominem abusive (personal attacks) by calling me a "Romney supporter." Whether or not that's true is beside the point. Respectfully, he shouldn't get those points.
Duncan

Con

I don't need sources for my argument. I am using economic reasoning to show how the governments spending has value. You want one anyway? http://www.debate.org...

That's proof you are a Romney Supporter. Not just Ad Hominem. Leave the voters to give points, don't tell them what to do. I will close my argument with rebuttal. First up, naming sources is rather cheap when it's stuff like source 1. It doesn't explain why Keynesian theory does not work. Reducing unemployment reduces the amount of welfare required and increases taxes, boosting the economy. But that's a smaller point. You claim that spending to help the economy is a waste of time, but if 40% of America's population starved to death due to welfare cuts, then that would have a detrimental effect on America's economy. You're not thinking long run here. Recessions are quite short in the grand scheme of things.

Option one; cut spending. Welfare goes down, republicans suggest charities as you did, but charities can't sustain almost half the population. Not even close. The 40% can no longer afford food or shelter and end homeless on the streets, most dying. The missing 40% are no longer buying food and the stores and shops are now missing 40% of their customers. Eventually, as the recession ends, a demand for labour appears from new businesses, but the lack of people seeking employment means their businesses fail, adding them to the list of unemployed. By cutting this spending, you remove a massive sector of the markets, which will have a detrimental effect on the economy.

Option two. Keep spending. In the next few years, decline increases, but people must always buy food, even bread. Eventually, the bread ovens need maintenance, and a demand for repairmen appears. This demand is fulfilled by the unemployed, and with the money they receive, they buy food, and the money multiplies as it moves around. http://en.wikipedia.org...(economics)

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Maryland_Kid 3 years ago
Maryland_Kid
Welfare encourages people to not work because they are getting stuff for free. Look at the Fox News special.
Posted by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
My Vote reasons exceeded max, so I will repeat and compete in comments:

Before/after- I generally recognize the value of Keynesian theory and the historicity of Keynesian proofs. Neither argument did much to alter my position
Conduct- conduct was ok, but I give Con a point because Pro tried to make a conduct issue out of the Romney remark. It may be irrelevant to the debate to point out the relationship between Pro's arguments and Romney's talking points, but that does not make for ad hominem attack.
Convincing argument points to Con, although Con simply argued Keynes and spent little time countering Pro's points (the essence of the challenge, essentially). Nevertheless, Pro's tactic of making serial declarations with a link to similar declarations failed to persuade. What are the reasons Govt. spending fails bolster the economy? What are the consequences? Furthermore, Pro's arguments were internally inconsistent (I.e. poverty rate is worse since LBJ, next sentence poverty is climbing back to LBJ levels. Which is it?)
Reliable sources to Con. Con didn't source much, but he also didn't link to wildly unsupported conclusions. Take source #1 , 4.1 million per job, for example. Not only did Pro cite the most extreme range as fact pro failed to look at the math. That number is reached by projecting 10 years of deficit spending and dividing by one year of job adds, without considering the value add of the project. If the Govt spent $100 million dollars and employed 100 workers to construct a bridge, this math would conclude that the Govt spent $1 million per job, ignoring the cost of the bridge, the economic benefits of the bridge, and the value those 100 new workers brought to the local economy. Pro's sources ranged from weak to flat out bogus.
Posted by Maryland_Kid 3 years ago
Maryland_Kid
More government spending = more poverty = more government dependence. That's history. Look at France and Rome.
Posted by Maryland_Kid 3 years ago
Maryland_Kid
The problem, Bullish, is you can't prove that.
Posted by Maryland_Kid 3 years ago
Maryland_Kid
Pretty much all government spending including welfare.
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
I should note that stimulus packages are not ONLY meant to create more jobs. In many cases, they are meant to SAVE jobs. With this in mind, the correlative studies taken in the videos do not tell the whole story.
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
Does this include welfare?
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
Are you talking about ALL government spending or just certain stimuli packages?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DoubtingDave 3 years ago
DoubtingDave
Maryland_KidDuncanTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm giving conduct to pro as con came across as very arrogant. Moreover, Pro used more sources than con so that is the source point. I believe that pro had the more convincing arguments because con did not effectively rebut the argument that 1) We spend too much money per job to get any improvement; 2) The money has to come from the private sector; and 3) Government spending often makes the economy worse.
Vote Placed by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
Maryland_KidDuncanTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Before/after- I generally recognize the value of Keynesian theory and the historicity of Keynesian proofs. Neither argument did much to alter my position Conduct- conduct was ok, but I give Con a point because Pro tried to make a conduct issue out of the Romney remark. It may be irrelevant to the debate to point out the relationship between Pro's arguments and Romney's talking points, but that does not make for ad hominem attack. Convincing argument points to Con, although Con simply argued Keynes and spent little time countering Pro's points (the essence of the challenge, essentially). Nevertheless, Pro's tactic of making serial declarations with a link to similar declarations failed to persuade. What are the reasons Govt. spending fails bolster the economy? What are the consequences? Furthermore, Pro's arguments were internally inconsistent (I.e. poverty rate is worse since LBJ, next sentence poverty is climbing back to LBJ levels. Which is it?) Reliable sources to Con. Con
Vote Placed by trippledubs 3 years ago
trippledubs
Maryland_KidDuncanTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Reluctantly give reliable sources to PRO, for having some. Con used logic more effectively to demonstrate why it is not a waste of money. PRO gets conduct.