The Instigator
Mari
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
treesforever
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

New Deal

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  
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: 3/9/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,116 times Debate No: 15264
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Mari

Pro

Roosevelt was given an impossible task. The united states was in such a bad shape that no one could fix it. He made reforms that created relief that lead to economic recovery. While Hoover was in office, he did little to try to help the problem. Without the three R's (relief, reforms, and recovery) the progress made by the New Deal would not have been affected.
treesforever

Con

yes its true that the country was sinking financially and that roosevelt created new reforms that helped society insure their money but the outcome was expensive. He raised taxes while the people were still doing poorly he also manipulated the countries votes to whatever party gave them the best goodies. The new deal also went against laissez faire (government shouldn't get involved in money issues). The government is set up to lead a country not to pocket cash. The new deal also have to much power to the government and could have caused dictatorship (given that it didn't but at the time people didn't know that). Even though there was more jobs available there was a large amount of discrimination against minorities which only let the whites succeed like always.
Debate Round No. 1
Mari

Pro

Even if the outcome was expensive he did many programs to help the new deal system to success in later years. Congress also reorganize the banks as well as release more money such made it more safer to the public. Yes the government was spending too much money that they shouldn't have but in the end Roosevelt created the Economy Act that reallocated funds from Beer Wine Act saving the United States government $500 million. Roosevelt also started the Civilian Conservation Corps, which gave them job opportunities.
treesforever

Con

So expensive that taxes went from $1.6 billion to $5.3 billion in the matter of seven years. When Roosevelt in creased the taxes he discouraged small business owners to hire employes causing their businesses to fail making the richer richer and poorer poorer. The programs that FDR created didn't increases the number of jobs in the economy because the money spent on the new deal projects came from taxpayers who had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. The new deal also got most of their money from the south, the poorest people in the country. We can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.
Debate Round No. 2
Mari

Pro

during times of war the U.S. government can suspend civil liberties such as, the freedom of speech. If the U.S. government can put an end to the most basic right of speech then it is right to raise taxes during an economic crisis. Therefore, people have to sacrifice there personal freedom in other to protect their country. Despite the fact that many poor people had to pay taxes during the great depression, the rich people had to pay their taxes just like everyone else. By the way im not going to accept the fact that you said the New Deal got their money by the South i need proof. :) I LOVE MYSELF!!!!
treesforever

Con

When the government gets involved in things that are out of its role it creates it takes wealth, either from the present with taxes or the future from debt. The New Deal was a fake recovery, it wasn't until capital was left to reset that the economy began to rise. The south is an agricultural economy during the great depression they lost everything. When Roosevelt took office he created The New Deal and made a couple of programs which he thought would relieve americans. The agricultural reforms failed until 1936, but there was a catch, the farmers would forever be in debt with the government. This way the farmers would vote in favor of Roosevelt's party because they offered the most goodies. Did you ever wonder why Roosevelt served three terms? Government spending doesn't create prosperity.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by abard124 6 years ago
abard124
I don't think Hoover did NOTHING... He was a bit too conservative and too optimistic, but in general, he did in many ways undermine the Laissez-Faire economic disaster that got us into the great depression. If you want to blame someone, blame Coolidge. I can't find a transcript, but Will Rogers did a really good piece on that in 1930... He was basically saying that Coolidge killed the economy, but people really expected way too much out of Hoover. They expected him to change the weather. He actually did do quite a bit of stuff, but people were unreasonably expecting things out of him. It's really not at all unlike the current situation with Obama. The one quote I could find was, "a voter just goes to the polls and if he has got a dollar you stay in, and if he ain't got a dollar, you go out. The memory of a voter is about as long as a billy goat. So it is all going to depend on how [President] Hoover makes out the last year." That's so true.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Scyrone 6 years ago
Scyrone
MaritreesforeverTied
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: Can both of you please learn to spell?
Vote Placed by abard124 6 years ago
abard124
MaritreesforeverTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brought up some good points, whereas Con said some things without substance, such as her comment on Laissez-Faire. Yes, it does go against Laissez-Faire. Good. Laissez-Faire economics don't work. I was disappointed that Pro didn't mention that, but she did bring up specifics and why they were good, which Con didn't as much. And both of you, especially Con, remember capital letters. They are your friends.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
MaritreesforeverTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Disjointed arguments, no sources, argument to Con by default as Pro could not maintain the BoP.