The Instigator
bluestater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CiRrO
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Liberal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
CiRrO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,730 times Debate No: 5282
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

bluestater

Pro

Liberal. The label that is despised and hated by all that oppose change and reform. I start this debate to argue that change IS for the better, and that without it we can NOT improve the current state of the economy, and can NOT improve living conditions for an average citizen.
Without change, we will never see the light at the end of the tunnel that is TRUE freedom and liberty. Without change, our country will continue to depend on foreign oil. Without change, American families will continue to slip into debt and poverty. Without change, no jobs will be formed in the United States, but continue to be formed in foreign countries. Without change, we as United States citizens will continue live in a country of lies and of a deprived economy.
Why do people oppose change? This is a question that baffles me every day. The best explanation I have come up with is that men and woman of the United States are scared to change their living conditions. I beg them not to be scared but to rejoice that change is near and that the light at the end of the tunnel IS in sight.
Change is the only thing that can improve our economy, bring us out of debt, create jobs, and bring a stable and good life to middle-class citizens.

For example: How can we end our dependence on foreign oil? We could start drilling for oil in American territories. Or we could research and resort to alternate fuel sources. What do you call this transition to dependence to independence? It's called "change." Heard of it before?
CiRrO

Con

"The label that is despised and hated by all that oppose change and reform. I start this debate to argue that change IS for the better, and that without it we can NOT improve the current state of the economy, and can NOT improve living conditions for an average citizen."

--> (Fundamental flaw) My opponent is arguing an imperative of which is flawed. Change can bring good things, yes. However change does not mean inherent goodness. E.g. Hitler brought about change in Germany, and see how that turned out. Lenin and Stalin brought change and it destroyed the society of which it was meant to help.

I will refute each basic premise and negate my opponents case.

1) Obama will institute a policy that will help the economy and the middle class.

--> This is totally wrong. Obama's economic policy is based on an extreme tax increase. As shown by history in the US, increase in taxes undermine consumer confidence and lead to less investment in the stock markets. The US economy is a free market economy, with slight governmental regulations. However, for the most part companies and businesses have the most say in their own workings. The only time this is infringed on is if criminal activities are occurring, or anything else of the nature. When consumer confidence is low and investment is low, the whole US economy plummets, hurting the middle and upper classes. Obama's economic plan is one that will destroy the US economy and break the fundamental free-market value that is the basis of American society. Therefore, Obama's tax plan will hurt the economy, and thus hurt the middle class.

2) This policy is change.

--> No, this policy is not change. This is the very foundation of former president Carter's plan. His plan put the US economy to brink of depression. Fortunately Reagan saved the day with a Republican view of the economy. I.e. low taxes, and fiscal responsibility. Since this type os economic plan has been implemented before, it is not change.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
bluestater

Pro

bluestater forfeited this round.
CiRrO

Con

My opponent has forfeited. Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
bluestater

Pro

bluestater forfeited this round.
CiRrO

Con

He has forfeited once again. Extend my arguments.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jdwooch 8 years ago
jdwooch
Not really sure by the statement, "This is proof that you don't know. The 'lower class' already pays little/no income tax"
My proof is the failing economy, the mortgage prices, and my family and families around me. The fact is, people making $250k or over can pay and have a duty to help their fellow Americans.
"For every $1 reduction for the bottom 95%, taxes would need to be raised >$30 for those over $250K!"
I'm not sure about the numbers, but I am sure that it's not that.

Independent studies show that obama will raise taxes for rich, lower for middle class. McCain will LOWER taxes for the RICH, lower (a little) for the middle class. Also the federal deficit will grow for McCain. http://www.suntimes.com...

Obama will only raise the capital gains tax about 5-7%.
"There is no increase/decrease for $136K-$249K" Obama will decrease taxes for those people

Point of this: check your facts
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
jdwooch
"...people making over $250,000 a year can afford more taxes, while the middle and lower class need a break." This is proof that you don't know. The "lower class" already pays little/no income tax.
"About the capital gains/ FICA tax: ...people who are (A)ffected from the capital gains/dividends tax are in the upper class (mostly) and Obama is not raising it a huge amount"
He proposes doubling of these taxes. Even the lower/middle classes have retirement funds. Clinton cashed in on the "peace dividend" created by Reagan. The FICA tax is higher because, like all liberal programs, FICA is long-term-bankrupt.
For every $1 reduction for the bottom 95%, taxes would need to be raised >$30 for those over $250K! (There is no increase/decrease for $136K-$249K) That, just to stay even! Not a cent towards his gigantic social programs. What about the $815 Billion for "world poverty"? Where does that come from. Taxes on the rich is the liberal mantra. But taxes on the middle class is the reality. Because if inflation creep, you and I will be paying the top tax rates within 20 yeas. Finally, the poor - anyone who receives any kind of largess from any govt. entity - can not pay a tax. Impossible! The very rich, also, cannot pay a (constructive) tax - much as they might want to. So, who pays almost all the taxes: you and I. Your attitude is very Marxist: you believe that since they (top 5%) can pay they should pay. "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx
Posted by jdwooch 8 years ago
jdwooch
Btw cirro i think you won the debate even though i don't agree with you lol
Posted by jdwooch 8 years ago
jdwooch
To magipie's comment:
Yes, i understand simple economics, and think that people making over $250,000 a year can afford more taxes, while the middle and lower class need a break.
About the capital gains/ FICA tax: First of all, income taxes are by far the most significant tax on the American people. Second, people who are effected from the capital gains/dividends tax are in the upper class (mostly) and Obama is not raising it a huge amount, just back what it was to the Clinton years (may i remind you that we had a surplus when Clinton was pres.) Same goes for the FICA tax (back to clinton years)
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Your 95% is only income taxes. He will increase the capital gains/dividends tax and the FICA tax on EVERYONE. These two taxes are the 2 most important when it comes to the economy.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
JDWOOCH's comment is testamony to the sorry state of primary education, today. How wonderful that the mesiah would reduce taxes for 95%, while increasing taxes for the remaining 5%. Why didn't anyone else think of this? JD, I hate to break this to you but the economic math simply does not work. Liberals, being ( no so very ) great at simple math, just subtract the amount of tax decrease from the 95%, add that amount to the 5% - along with the additional taxes for the war on world poverty, socialized medicine, and all the other wonderful (read expensive) programs that are included in the "change" and presto: Nirvana. Gee, if I had thought of that maybe I could have been president.
It would be scary that there would be a single high school grad. who would embrace such a wierd notion. But, about one half of the voters are taken in by this chicanery. Let's hope that it is much less than one half!
Posted by jdwooch 8 years ago
jdwooch
WOAH WOAH WOAH,
Starwars' main point is that Obama wants to raise taxes... although you are a good debater (and obviously very smart) you need BASIC RESEARCH to do a debate.
Obama's economic policy would actually cut taxes for 95% of americans (if you make $250,000 or more you're taxes will be raised)
Posted by the_conservative 8 years ago
the_conservative
i dont despise and hate the word liberal. I laugh my head off. all i see when i hear that word is a bunch of fagg-loving pansies who cant stand up for themselves alone so they need a huge army of protesters, annoying little voices who think they are always right. just plain fools
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Obama is like the apostles, in that when he speaks of "CHANGE" each listener hears that which is the most important to the listener. The change that I hear is Obama 's plan for you and me, is a change from Free Enterprise to Marxist Socialism. He intends (he's open about it) to raise taxes - this will slow the economy. He will also, vastly expand government and spending, unilaterally reduce our ability to respond to an attack on our country, and encourage abortionists to chase down newborns who survived an abortion. What a wonderful fellow, this guy. This is change I can do without.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
I was not aware my opponent put a typing cap....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DoctrinallyCorrect 8 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
bluestaterCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
bluestaterCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05