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

Liberal Democrats have no fiscal responsibility

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 873 times Debate No: 32111
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing that Liberals in general demonstrate a complete lack of economic common sense and fiscal responsibility. Round 1 is for ACCEPTANCE ONLY. Arguments will start in round 2. I hope for a great debate!


I accept this debate as a teen independent.

You may proceed.
Debate Round No. 1


The liberal philosophy for economic growth (or lack there of) is not effective and demonstrates a lack of economic knowledge and responsibility. Let's look at our current situation, shall we? The nation is $17 trillion in debt and we have a budget deficit of nearly $1 trillion dollars that will add to the debt each year. The republican strategy is to make significant spending cuts to the federal budget in order to reduce the size of this monster deficit. It is clearly the only viable option and there have been many plans introduced by Republicans like Paul Ryan that have made it possible to see this deficit lower and eventually diminish. Unfortunately, the liberals have to be the big spending, huge government advocates that got us into this mess in the first place... Their plan is to raise taxes on the American people across the board in order to reduce the deficit. There are many PROBLEMS with this plan. They go as follows:

1. Taxes are already very high on all working Americans. They certainly are paying their "fair share"

2. Raising taxes would destroy an economy that is trying to slowly recover and put us right back into recession.

3. Even if the government taxed us all at a whopping 75%, economists say that would barely dent the deficit... The savings must come from spending cuts

4. Taxes already took a hike in 2010 when Obama and the liberal senate raised them on all people making over $450,000... Those are the people who create jobs!

Overall, the liberal plan is ludicrous and unrealistic...


I'm taking this argument based on not liberals are fiscally responsible, but the fact that conservatives and republicans have no better fiscal policies than liberals.

First off, let us remember who the last president was that we had a surplus under was: Bill Clinton, a democrat.

Let us remember who plunged us into a decade long way that cost us trillions of dollars that was on complete false pretenses: George Bush. And I'm speaking of the Iraq war by the way in case it wasn't clear enough.

You cannot lower taxes on the upper class and expect it to create jobs. No company expands unless they see a market to expand into. And right now, the market is shrinking, so companies are not going to try and expand.

Also, the reason that we have to take these huge taxes out on the upper class is because they don't end up paying their fair share in the end. They will find every single loophole in the end to get out of paying their taxes. This Caribbean entertainment industry that runs cruise lines (sorry, the name escapes me) ended up only paying 1.8 percent taxes on their profit margin that year because of their tax lawyers allowing them to get out of paying what you would call their fair share.

Let me remind you that when president Obama took office, the debt was somewhere in the ballpark of 12-14 trillion. Let me also remind you that the economic crash happened right when President Obama took office in 2009, it wasn't his actions that caused it, it was the previous administration, due to Bush deregulating the banks and allowing them to tank the economy in every way they see fit.

The deficit did indeed go up under Obama tremendously the first year he took office. 1 trillion dollars to be in the ballpark. However you have to remember that was in part due to the 800 billion dollar bail out to the banks, which I remind you both McCain and Obama signed yes on. Also, part of the reason the deficit went up, is because taxes went down causing the revenue to decrease around .4 trillion dollars.

Now, on the topic of Paul Ryan and his 'budget'. His budget is based off of simplistic arguments that do not work. First off, his plan was to cut 4.3 trillion dollars in spending, but through 2023. That's ten years it would take to cut just 4.3 trillion dollars, which results in only a .43 trillion dollar reduction for every year. I remind you that doesn't mean to cut an additional .43 trillion a year, its just .43 trillion a year off and its done. Plus, his cuts wont even matter after he implements his tax plan, which is just two tax brackets of 10 percent and 25 percent. That would cause the federal tax revenue to be around only .5 trillion a year, and the government spends around 3 trillion a year. Even if you could manage to cut down government spending by 33 percent, to 2 trillion a year, under Paul Ryan's plan, you would still have a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit.

The answer to paying off the government's debt is NOT lowering taxes. No one likes to pay taxes, we all understand that. But guess what, times are hard, and we ALL are going to just have to face the fact that we are going to need a few years of higher taxes and cut spending in RESPONSIBLE areas. Paul Ryan wants to take massive cuts to education, highways, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, which will just cause these burdens to fall back harder on the States, which take in relatively little tax dollars as it is. We need to take cuts to the bloated military budget we have. It accounts for roughly 45 percent of federal spending. We can cut that by huge amounts by retracting our military from the idiotic posts that bush put them in. The military should serve as defense for the people, not defending the oil rigs of Exxon Mobile, who Bush was in the pocket of all along. We don't need to spend this much in military. We just DON'T.

We need to accept the fact that higher taxes are what we need right now and we can lower them after the debt is paid off.
Debate Round No. 2


There are many, many wholes in your argument.

First of all, President Clinton had a surplus because of the republican congress! Have you ever heard of a man by the name Newt Gingrich? He is the one (speaker of the house) who proposed and got passed the budget that led to the surplus. Clinton merely signed off on it (probably after cheating on his wife, just saying).

Secondly, George Bush was not responsible for the 2008 mess. The crisis occurred because banks gave out loans for houses to people that could not pay them back. Ex. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Those banks and policies were set up by the Clinton administration, not Bush. They were time bombs that just so happened to go off in '08.

You say that the Republicans are no better, history proves you wrong... Let's take a stroll through historic times.

1. When Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) took over for Harry Truman (D), the economy dramatically improved and things got done... Example: the interstate highway system

2. When Ronald Reagan (R) took over for Jimmy Carter (D), the cold war ended, unemployment went down by more than 3 whole percentage points, and inflation came to a halt.

3. When George W. Bush (R) took over for Bill Clinton (D), unemployment dropped significantly, believe it or not, gas prices were low and finally we had a president that did not get away with lying to congress about cheating on his wife...
Also, it is not Bushes fault that al Qaeda attacked us and Saddam Hussein provoked us into 2 wars. WE HAD NO CHOICE. THIS IS AN ECONOMIC DEBATE, NOT A FOREIGN POLICY DEBATE. The economy was great under Bush until the final year, AT NO FAULT OF HIS OWN... THE LIBERALS CONTROLLED CONGRESS.

All in all, you are wrong in saying that Republicans are not better. They are. I stand by the fact that liberals are fiscally and economically ignorant.


First off, please leave Clinton's personal life out of this debate. It has nothing to do with it, and you know it. So stop with the mudslinging already, it's very unbecoming.

Second, I'm bringing in the Iraq war due to the fact that it cost a tremendous amount of money that we didn't need to spend.

And you make my point yourself with the argument that the banks were lending out too much money. It was because of course, George Bush deregulated them and allowed them to do what they wanted. They were under near limitless ability to do what they wanted, creating the housing bubble, a stock bubble, another housing bubble, and the list goes on.

Now I think I'll bring up the point that liberal increase in taxes is going to be half of a two part solution to the government's budget, the other half being cuts in spending. I agree, just relying on the government and giving them too much power is bad, however, the reality is that we are 16-17 trillion dollars in debt right now. You do not solve a debt problem in the government by lowering taxes. That is the most backward logic, that most conservatives would have you believe. I think we need temporary tax hikes, and tremendous cuts in military spending and other areas where possible (Which by the way, Paul Ryan tried to do but failed, due to his cuts being in places like highway systems and education, which would be repulsive if you really want to help the economy.)

I know, I know. You hear raise taxes and you go ballistic over it and think Marxist socialist. However, the reality is that our government is so far in debt that they literally cannot get themselves out unless we do temporary 5-10 percent tax hikes and cut spending enormously. Then, after the debt is subsided, the country will have it's currency taken seriously again by other nations. Then the economy could start boosting itself without any government interference.

And please, trying to say that a republican congress was the reason that Bill Clinton's policies worked. By that logic, all good things that happen in government only happen because of the senate and the presidents have nothing to do with it. Then why are you complaining about spending under Obama? It doesn't add up.

I agree I disagree with a lot of the spending that happened under Obama. Not completely, there is some smart spending that he did.

But under Bush? No. I wasn't happy one bit. His giant tax returns that he gave out did NOTHING for the economy and put the government into higher deficit.

And by the way, unemployment dropped below 8 percent under Obama in 2012. Most economists agree that even getting it under 10 percent is an extremely high achievement. So don't try and say that unemployment went up, because it went down.

I'm not saying that it 9/11 was Bush's fault, all I'm saying is his horrible foreign policy led to horrible spending that did not need to happen.

Oh, and if this is completely an "economic debate" like you claim it to be, then why bring up that the cold war ended under Reagan?

And the reason that the economy was tanking under Truman was because of the Korean war being over when Eisenhower took office. A war being ended will do wonders for the economy, but Eisenhower did that, not Clinton.

I'll tell you something. Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were all GREAT and responsible presidents. They handled what was happening with the economy well, and they were ALL liberal, progressive Democrats.

Great republican presidents who handled the economy well: Reagan, Eisenhower (not for the reasons you say though) Harding, Coolidge, you can even make the argument for H.W. Bush.

George Bush RUINED this economy. It's like Republicans were so happy when he won in 2000, that they all decided to get drunk for 8 years and woke up saying "WOAH, THERE'S A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE? HE MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THIS." After he was only in office for around 100 days.

I'm not saying that liberals are super responsible and I'm not saying that Republicans aren't responsible. I'm just stating that every party has it's bad leaders. The Republican one would be Bush. However, I don't even believe that Obama is a bad leader economically. One reason the economy hasn't seen such a rapid improvement like the country wants, is that he is laying the foundation for a much longer lasting fix for the economy that actually WORKS. Unlike George bush who basically thought " I have an idea, I'll just give everyone some money back."

Which did nothing.
Nothing. I mind you.

Argument over.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by teenconservative 4 years ago
BLAZETV12, thanks for your interest in this debate. I am 15 years old and I'm curious as to which side you come down on. Also, what is the link to one of the similar debates that you have? I'd be interested in reading them,

Posted by BLAZETV12 4 years ago
Alright Teen Conservative vs Teen Progressive. I like it. Im 19 myself, and as leon knows were debating on a similar topic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.