Is the Right Wing Better Than the Left Wing
Debate Rounds (3)
Happy Debating - over to you......
1. To understand this you must realize that The Obama administration is very Liberal. His administration's brainchild "ObamaCare"or "ACA"was a total disaster. The government should not have control over your health care. Obama and his administration have desperately failed in that regard. We all know too well of the stories of those negatively affected by ACA. I do not find it relevant to discuss each one with you, but about 1/3 of Americans had their plan canceled due to ObamaCare(1) At the beginning of the ACA's implementation Obama said,"You can keep your plan and doctor". This is just one of many half-truths created by the administration. You must understand that a government with mainly leftist ideology just cannot work.
2. Another resounding failure of the Liberal party is welfare. About 109,631,000 Americans received some benefits from the government as of 2012 (2). Yes, a lot of Americans do need some kind of benefit. However, there are many who simply hop on welfare because it's free cash. The amount of recipients of food stamps has been increased by 1/3 since 2007(3). It has become increasingly easy to receive welfare. About 1,000,000,000,000 dollars go to these programs annually! If we are ever going to get out if our national debt we must cut our welfare spending. Something Obama had obviously not done.
3. Although it's not controlled directly from Washington, minimum wage is yet another disaster in the making. Each state sets it's own minimum wage. I'll be taking my state, Pennsylvania, as an example. The current minimum wage in PA is $7.25/hour. The newly elected governor is Tom Wolf. Mr. Wolf happens to be a Democratic Liberal. He proposes that the state raise it's minimum wage from $7.25/hr. to $10.25/hr. If this happens, it could lead to disastrous consequences. Tina Tartaglione, a senator in PA,is very adamant in the increase in minimum wage. She says,"To the critics who say that increasing the minimum wage will hurt the economy; you are wrong! Studies and history point to an increase in minimum wage having little to no negative impact on the economy." Either Ms. Tartaglione is doing a fine job of Texas sharpshooting, or her information is completely false. A raise in minimum wage does affect the economy negatively. To sum it up put yourself in a business owner's shoes. You have a job opening that if filled could greatly benefit your business. Suddenly you are forced to pay your employees $10.25/hour rather than $8.50/hour. Suddenly, you cannot fill that job opening and you have to lay off some of your employees. This phenomenon is occurring now and will greatly increase with a raise in minimum wage.
I have produced some major faults in leftist ideas. Your turn to take the floor.
Universal health care
Most Western democracies have seen the value of providing universal health care for their populations. They understand that health issues effect all social strata and that health costs as a percentage of income are much higher for those on lower (or no) incomes.
As an illustration, this is how the plot for Breaking Bad would have panned out if it was set in England, Canada, Australia, or a variety of Western European nations:
Walter White is diagnosed with lung cancer.
He receives state subsidized health care and gets better.
One of the single major causes of mortgage defaults within the USA is due to financial difficulties brought about by health issues. (1).
A lack of adequate health coverage thus spills into other areas of the economy. It can also reduce labour mobility as workers cling to unfulfilling or poorly paid jobs due to perceived value in their attached health insurance.
The implementation issues of Obamacare speak more about the competence of the current US administration more than it speaks to the worthwhile nature of the program itself.
Despite its lack of universal health care, the US spends $8,508 per person on health care (2011) " considerably more than its left wing contemporaries, and without the same gains in life expectancy they have enjoyed:
Per capita spending (2).Life Expectancy (3).
Welfare is a key pillar of left wing philosophy where the most vulnerable of society are ensured the basics of living, be it housing, food, education, unemployment benefits. Without it countless millions and especially their children will be left without equity of opportunity as they reach adulthood, and the poverty cycle would continue in perpetuity.
Right wing governments tend to cut back and limit social spending with the mistaken belief that the invisible hand of the market and the trickle-down effect will help the most vulnerable.
Economic liberalisation, despite the very real fact that it creates more wealth and jobs has also shown that it does not lead to income or wealth equality. Let me point out that this is not due to the fact that the wealthy are doing anything untoward, more so it is the mathematical reality that wealth naturally flows to a disproportionately small number of the population. (5).
To negate this natural phenomenon a reallocation of wealth to the less fortunate is required to bring balance.
So is the US deficit caused exclusively by excess Welfare spending, or is the main cause on the revenue side? Over the last five years tax intake as a percentage of GDP has been a couple of percentage points below historical averages. What is even more telling is that the corporate tax intake as a percentage of GDP is less than half of what it was during the fifties and sixties (4).
Welfare spending as a percentage of GDP has also increased over the last few years across much of the developed world, but what is interesting is that as the global recovery has occurred the workers have not enjoyed the same growth in wages as their wealthier counterparts " which leads us onto the next point.
A Living Wage
A minimum wage gives those without any, or very little, negotiation power in the market place some form of living wage. Compared to its OECD contemporaries, the US has a comparatively low minimum wage (7), especially considering the fact that its GDP per capita exceeds all of the below listed.
Increased wages do put upward pressure on inflation, but at the current meagre level it reduces the populous to being wage slaves having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet.
It is worthwhile to note that director and executive salaries over the last thirty years have grown into many multiples of the average wage - but for some reason those that run such companies do not have the same qualms about the effect their salaries have on inflation and the company bottom line. In 1978 CEO were paid on average 26.5 times the average worker " this has now increased to 206 times (8).
All three of the above facets of left wing philosophy are an important counterbalance to the often dogmatic belief by the right wing that an unfettered market place will magically benefit everyone - it simply doesn't.
Finally a tough stance on law and order is also often an attribute of a right wing philosophy. Although the protection of the population is paramount, an inflexible and harsh sentencing regime combined with the war on drugs has seen the US prison population grow to over 2.2 million inmates. This is the highest incarceration rate in the world, and five times the OECD average. Once again if we compare this to more left leaning countries one can see that this stance is highly undesirable. It costs the public purse dearly (over 70 billion dollars per annum) and mixes petty criminals, or personal drug users with hard core criminals. (9),(10)
All of the above demonstrate that a left wing philosophy is a beneficial one and is very far from being inferior to its right wing counterpart.
1.http://pnhp.org... & http://papers.ssrn.com...
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE- Why should the government pay for your health care? Look at the countries you have provided in your little story abouy Walter White. Each of the economies is going to Hell in a handbasket.
This is partiallly attributed to each providing health care to their citizens.
It's funny you should bring up this fact. The only place I could find talking about the link between health care and mortgage default was SSRN. This is not exactly unbiased information, considering the whole organization was bulit upon how "good" social security is.
Distributing universal health care has many downsides that you conviently side-stepped. Yes, it would dissuade people from clinging to low-end jobs. However, with universal health care comes great taxation. Especially on the small business owners.
The small business owners happen to be the mostly the ones offering jobs that aren't considered low-end. if the small business owners get hit hard by the new tax, they will not keep offering those jobs. Thus leading to higher unemployment and fewer quality jobs.
This point furthur points to the current incompatece of the Obama administration. If they facts you present are true, then why doesn't Obama (an undoubtly left-sided president) revoke the ACA?
Your facts don't solidify the benefits of universal health care, they point to Obamacare's failure.
WELFARE- The most overused word in the welfare arguement is opportunity. Why on Earth should a hard working business owner pay for a lazy bum's nessecites, when the bum isn't making a solid effort to find a job. Take Star Parker, an ex-welfare recepiant's, words as an example. "The welfare system enslaves the poor on a subsidized plantation." She is 100% right. Look through the eyes of the welfare recipient. Why should they get up and find work if Uncle Sam is going to send them a check twice a month. They're the ones not taking the initiative to get a job, not recieving unequal opportunity.
If a government is to cut back welfare spending, this is the idea. The market provides people with equal opportunity, some just don't take the innitiative.
Free market capitalism has lead to the highest standard of living, for the mosft number of people, since the history of mankind. Liberalism is based on "Robin Hood" ideology; Take from the rich and give to the poor. Liberalism limits the upward progression of the masses. Why would anyone look for work if they recieve a check on the first and fifteenth of every month. A relocation of cash only reduces the already dim initiative of the 'less fortunate"
MINIMUM WAGE- Why on earth would someone doing fine on thier minimum wage salary suddenly get paid almost a 50% increase. They are doing a job that most likely is unskilled labor. (i. e. McDonalds) They are doing a job that pays quite handsomly for the amount of training and experience required. The more you pay a worker, the less you can afford to pay other workers. If you pay too much, you can;t fill other jobs. That is the main problem with a raise in the minimum wage. Unemployment will take a turn for the worst if the minimum wage increases, only putting more people on government subsidized programs.
Do CEOs get payed a lot? Yes. Is it too much? Probably. However, the people working at McDonalds and the CEO of McDonalds have very different workloads.The CEO deserves to get payed many times the salary of the cashier.
You seem to be preaching a less harsh punisment for petty crime. Petty crime that's left alone can grow into something much more malicious.
I have upheld burden of proof that right wing governments are far more beneficial to a country than it's counterpart.
Universal Health Care
Con has asked why the government should provide healthcare. Perhaps because it is enough of a kick in the guts to get diagnosed with cancer without having to foot the bill as well. If a government is not there to care for its constituents when they need it the most, one must wonder what it is there for.
In regards to those countries having economies going to "hell in a hand basket", below are the growth rates of these same countries from 2010-2014 " the growth in both Australia and NZ exceeds that of the USA with the UK trailing the USA only slightly. With France"s economy having slow growth.
Per capita spending on health care(2).
USA - 8,508
Australia - 3,800
New Zealand - 3,182
France - 4,118
Life Expectancy (3)
USA - 77.9
UK - 79.7
Australia - 81.5
New Zealand - 80.4
France - 81.2
Econcomic Growth Rate (1)
USA - 2.2
UK - 1.7
Australia - 2.5
New Zealand - 2.5
France - .3
This demonstrates that strong economic growth and universal healthcare are not mutually exclusive.
Apologies for the truncation of my initial data onto the page, but you can see that the US spends twice as much as these other countries on health care without the benefit of a comparable life expectancy. So yes taxation to pay for universal health care may be higher, but this would be more than offset by lower (or no) insurance premiums and a sector more focussed on the wellbeing of its patients than the return on its investment.
Small business owners would not be negatively affected by the costs of universal health care any more than other tax payers. Generally such levies are based upon individuals, or a family"s taxable income not on how many, or how few employee"s they have as is the case with the system in the USA with employer sponsored health care.
In regards to the veracity of the SSRN data, you have provided no other research that indicates the nexus between mortgage foreclosures and the reasons for them " so in the absence of conflicting data from another source, any claim of bias is unfounded.
If there are many other downsides to universal healthcare you have not pointed them out convincingly. From the data I have provided - dated 2011, so hardly affected by the recent move to Obamacare - it is clear that Health reform is necessary in the USA. Any perceived incompetence of the current US administration in implementing these reforms in no way discounts the benefit of universal health care.
So in summary"universal health care:
2. Accessible to all
3. Higher Life expectancy
What's not to love?
The right wing argument has not demonstrated how it would provide health care for the most vulnerable in society and as such the right wing is not better than its leftie counterpart.
You ask"why on earth should the more fortunate harder working individuals pay taxes to assist the more unfortunate, dare we say lazy lay abouts?
Many people on welfare have children who are totally innocent of their situation and circumstance. If children do not receive adequate nutrition, housing, education, health care they will grow up to be very much like their parents and the cycle continues. If they receive these things they will more likely reach their full potential as an adult, become a valuable member of society and contribute to economic growth.
The OECD has just recently released a study that shows that there is a positive correlation between the equality within a country and its economic growth. They have surmised that those countries that are less egalitarian suffer the impact of a negative drain on economic growth. (2)
As mentioned in round 2, due to the Pareto Principle the money allocated to welfare will still filter right back up to the lucky few, but in the transition at least it gets to enrich the lives of the more unfortunate.
As the old adage says, money is like manure " it does more good when you spread it around.
Henry Ford paid his workers well. Why? Because they would then have enough money to buy the cars they made. The more you pay people, the more they will have to spend in the market place. There will also be a greater gap between welfare checks and pay checks giving added incentive for so called lazy bums to get off them and get to productive work.
In regards to incarceration rates, I believe petty crime or convictions of personal drug use should be dealt with - but not with incarceration.
When offenders are locked up with more hardened criminals the punishment does little if anything to reform them. One has to question the necessity of having an incarceration rate in the USA that is five times that of its peers, with a cost equally as excessive.
There was no suggestion that everyone should be paid the same, but those at the top tier have seen their incomes rise at an astronomic rate compared to lower skilled workers. Have these individuals worked harder in this time, or can those individuals make anything without the labour of the many? No. They have the benefit of leverage where any improvements or efficiencies they initiate are multiplied many times by all the workers underneath them.
Businesses should be run to work with increased output with reduced input and the gains for this should be shared by all the contributors and not just the members of the executive committee
My opponent has soundly demonstrated what happens when one side of the politcal spectrum comes to power and dogmatically applies their ideology.
In the case of the right wing it is this unquestioning belief in the power of the market to provide everything for everyone, with no solutions to the issues other than to lower taxes. They attack the programs implented by the left, yet are at a loss of how to resolve these issues.
A free, dare I say "liberal" market is the best source of wealth creation, as can be seen from the meterotic rise of China. The left of the politcal spectrum understand this, but they are also realistic about its limitations.
There is an old saying that if you are not a socialist when you are young you don't have a heart, and if you are not a capitalist when you are old you don't have a brain. For a wealthy, enriched and thriving society you need a little bit of both.
The left wing is just as important as the right wing and no less
Vote Con - you know you want to ;o)
Exit "stage left
Thanks to The World for Morals for an enjoyable debate
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Tearing at specific aspects of liberal creation with no reform or suggestion in its place doesn't do much. I was hoping for something offered to show what the 'right' brings to the table, but in the dilemma of 'questionable' policy vs 'no' policy, questionable wins.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.