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

Presidential Debate: Fixing the U.S. Economy

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 746 times Debate No: 49138
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Hello readers, this debate will be about the U.S. economy. I and my future challenger will pretend to be presidential candidates. Our objectives are to explain to the public on how we're going to lower the deficit; "&" make the U.S.A. a stronger nation over foreign nations. As you all know, the U.S. deficit is dangerously climbing towards $20 trillion. Our nation is also declining in rankage when it comes to STEM fields. These are some serious issues that needs to be addressed. You, the audience, will elect the next president who you think will be suitable for office.

My opponent can either be a Democrat, Republican, 3rd party member, or an independent. As for me, I will be an independent.

For this round, it will just be for greetings &/or establishing rules. I only have one rule:
1#: Be my devil's advocate & try to win the <3's of the people!

Good luck to my future challenger! My viewers, I hope you enjoy this debate!


Hello everyone, my name is Historygenius and I am the Republican nominee for president.

I would suggest that round 2 be our opening arguments, round 3 be our rebuttals, and round 4 be the conclusion. This should help out with the debate. What do you say?
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to see my opponent make his opening argument before me in this round. My reason: Computer problems for most of this day. In the 3rd round, I will put my opening argument & rebuttals together. Thank you all for your patience.


Thank you for this debate.

I intend to launch supply-side economic policies to save our economy and let it rise again. We must lower all forms taxes in order to let businesses flourish and rise again to meet economic standards. When businesses receive more money, they will use it to expand to produce more in order to increase revenue. They have the ability to lower prices because with more money they can handle the costs easier. Less regulations means that they will not have to deal with spending money to fulfill the government's needs.

Supply-side economics have been proven to have worked before in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s. Back in the 1920s, the Harding-Coolidge tax cuts that brought the top rate from 77% to 24% ushered in huge investing and consumption. Take a look at the unemployment rate for the time:

Unemployment rate during the 1920s
Here is the percent of ownership under various goods during the decade:

Ownership of goods during the 1920s.
How about during JFK? According to the statistics:

The tax rates did rise to a high of 90%, but more to that in my refutations later. JFK wanted to pass his own tax cut and bring the top rate down from 90% to 70%. He was killed (interesting notice: both Harding and JFK were supply-side guys and died), but LBJ passed the tax cuts anyway.

The results showed modest improvements. Real GDP grew from 4.6% to 5.1% and unemployment went from 5.6% to 3.9%. The Congressional Budget Office looked into federal budget receipts and found huge increases in billions of dollars that exceeded expectations.

And now with Reagan:

We all know that Reagan passed major tax cuts during his presidency that expanded the economy dramatically. The top tax rate went from JFK's 70% in 1981 to several lower rates before finally finishing at 28% in 1988. Once again, looking at the some economic figures.

Real GDP growth was at 0.9% before the tax cuts to 4.8% after and unemployment decline from 10.8% at its height down to 5.4%. As with the two previous examples, the economy grew rapidly.

Finally, I think this country needs a gold standard for currency stability. This helps with the trade deficit:

"The gold standard will reduce the "bad" trade deficit, which contributes to job losses. Under the current system of floating currencies, the world is on a de facto paper dollar standard. This creates artificial demand for the U.S. Treasury securities by foreign central banks and corporations."

And to refute gold starting the Depression:

"What we know as the Great Depression actually started as a recession, similar to the recession of 1919. In both cases, we were on a gold standard, and the Federal Reserve mismanaged it. But what turned the recession of the early 1930s into the Great Depression was a series of additional policy errors that intensified the severity and duration of the the downturn."


Lebergott, Stanley. Annual Estimates of Unemployment in the United States, 1900-1954. 1957.
Lebergott, Stanley. Pursuing Happiness: American Consumers in the Twentieth Century
Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.
Cain, Herman. 9-9-9 An Army of Davids. 2012
Debate Round No. 2


Regaladia forfeited this round.


Easy win.
Debate Round No. 3


Regaladia forfeited this round.


1Historygenius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Buggie111 2 years ago
OH, ok then, fine...
Posted by Buggie111 2 years ago
Hold this open, I'll join by tomm. morning.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Only Pro presented his arguments.