The Instigator
bubbatheclown
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
tylergraham95
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Reaganomics are a significant cause of modern economic strife.

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 2 votes the winner is...
tylergraham95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,285 times Debate No: 45578
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

bubbatheclown

Con

You may go present your argument first. Pro has burden of proof.
tylergraham95

Pro

Definitions

Reaganomics - The economic policy of the Reagan Administration a.k.a. trickle down economics. Specifically, a policy that revolves around cutting taxes for the rich in order for the wealth to disseminate to the poor. Also, a policy that cuts spending on domestic services.

Significant- important; of consequence.



Pros Case

I.Reaganomics harms the economy

"For half a century – from the depths of the Great Depression until the rise of Ronald Reagan – the U.S. government invested in building the nation and funding key research. And the country flourished. But Reagan then reversed those priorities." - Robert Parry.

For this debate, I will be addressing 4 characteristics of the economy that are usually very good indicators as to whether or not your economy is thriving: GDP growth, Income/wage growth, and job growth.

Reaganomics helps none of these


(A) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to GDP growth.

In '63, taxes from the rich were cut from nearly 90%, to about 35%. With trickle down economic theory, it's dipped as low as 28%. If this policy was an effective one, we would see an obvious general upward trend of our national GDP, with a correlation coefficient close to -1. Observe the following graph. (1)



As you can see, there is no obvious trend. Yes the economy did boom initially, but almost immediately recessed. Under Clinton, taxes for the rich were raised, and the economy strengthened. When Bush Jr. stepped into office, and taxes for the rich were again slashed, the economy quickly recessed again (the 2008 recession). The correlation coefficient between Tax cuts and GDP is actually .3, meaning that it is slightly indicitave of a negative trend.


(B) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.

So it doesn't help the GDP, and even hurts the GDP. So if you still aren't convinced, examine the effect of top tax cuts and income. (1)



"Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)!"(1)

Reaganomics does not help boost our income or our GDP, and therefore is a harmful economic policy.


(C) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.

The same story is told for wage growth, when one observes historical evidence.(1)


"Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase." (1)

Tax cuts just don't help! It can be shown with evidence through our economy. We've had this system for 40 years, and now our economy has been recessed very powerfully. The recession started before Obama was in office, so you can't just shift the blame to him. Our economy failed under Reaganomics. How can you say that it isn't the cause of modern economic strife?


(D) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

Another point that many Reagan fans love to harp on: Jobs. Let's see how Reaganomics affects jobs.



"Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship." (1)


Summary
Reaganomics does not help the economy. Evidence shows that it only hurts.


II. Reaganomics is economically immoral.

"The hard truth for the Republicans and the Right to swallow is that a three-decade experiment with historically low tax rates on the rich has done little more than concentrate America’s wealth at the very top and leave everyone else either stagnating or falling backwards." (2)

(A) It is easily exploited

The most major flaw in Reaganomics is the riches ability to exploit it. The idea is that, once the cup is full, it will spill over. But unlike cups, wealth does not have a physical limit. To fit the metaphor, all the rich have to do is get a bigger cup. And why wouldn't they? What incentive to they have to give to the poor? None! Very few of the rich donate a significant portion of their wealth to the poor and those who do typically also give to the democratic party (the party fighting Reaganomics). Pope Francis writes "Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra­lized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

The rich are greedy, and with the wealth concentrated in their pockets, they now have the power to control government via lobbying.

(B) It is the major cause of the modern income gap

With taxes low for the rich, the money stagnates at the top. Jobs aren't growing, GDP is growing, Wages aren't growing, income isn't growing, and the working class suffers. Now, 90% of Americas wealth is held by the top 1% of Americans. CEO wages have grown
"Since 1978, CEO pay at American firms has risen 725 percent, more than 127 times faster than worker pay over the same time period, according to new data from the Economic Policy Institute"(3)




SUMMARY


Reaganomics A) does not help the economy, and B) suppresses the majority of Americans. Therefore, it is a significant cause of modern economic strife.

VOTE PRO!



Sources
1. http://www.faireconomy.org...
2. http://consortiumnews.com...
3. http://thinkprogress.org...
Debate Round No. 1
bubbatheclown

Con

You used a lot of fancy charts that I didn't understand, so I'll simply base my debate off what you said.
Before I begin, I find it amusing that Democrats always name Reaganomics after Ronald Reagan, but they refuse to name "Obamacare" after Barack Obama. Anyhow, this has nothing to do with the debate.

In your argument you said that every year taxes to the rich were cut the economy went bad. But is that the only factor?
Did you know that there is another factor involved? In 1963 the Democrats held the majority in both houses.
And then, in 2008 when the Recession hit, the Democrats were in charge again. As they were in the 1987 and 1989 congresses.

In contrast, during the totally rad 90s, the Republicans were in charge from 1995 until 2001. This was a period of economic growth. So, either the democrats are doing tax cuts for the wealthy (unlikely) or this isn't as important an economic factor as you think it is. And let me put it this way: a President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) can't be as liberal as you think he is.

I'm sorry if I didn't cover most of your points. But I didn't understand half of that.

Then, you said that Reaganomics are economically immoral. But...
John D. Rockefeller gave a lot of money to charity. My source for that claim is Wikipedia.
J.C. Penney tithed 90% of his money.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both gave billions to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
And ultimately, you are proven wrong in this point by "The Giving Pledge," a pledge for billionaires that they will give most of their money to charity. According to the Huffington Post (a ridiculously liberal newspaper), 81 billionaires have already signed the pledge.
So are the wealthy stingy people who never give back? The answer to this is a resounding NO.

So what is the difference between the rich giving freely and the rich being taxed by the government, you may ask? Well, when the rich give money to the Government, they're giving their money to an inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt entity, which probably wastes 50% of the money it receives. But when the rich people do stuff, they do it efficiently. Corporations are ran by people with economic brains, people who think up new money-saving solutions in their sleep. The Government, on the other hand, would spend 200 billion dollars to try in vain to save an endangered species of rain forest monkeys.
And also, when you were a teenager, if your mom told you to unload the dishwasher, it was a chore, right? But whenever you went to a friend's house and offered to unload the dishwasher for your friend's mom, it wasn't a chore. You did it more enthusiastically and you probably did a better job. It's that way with the wealthy giving to charity as well.

Also, let me ask you: is it wrong for wealthy people to have their wealth, to make as much money as they do?
I believe that if you simply inherit a company from somebody or you become the CEO of an already existing company, then you do not have the right to extract an unlimited amount of money from the company funds. It is not your right.
However, if you created the company yourself, if you opened multiple businesses and it became a chain and you were the CEO of this business, then I believe you have the right to do whatever you want with the company, provided you pay your workers according to the contract between employer and employee. You are not oppressing your workers; you are giving them a job. You took a risk, you used your brain, and you established your businesses. Its tax percentage should not be more than that of a middle or lower class person. It should not be punished for being successful.
Therefore, excessive taxes on the wealthy is unethical if the person you're taxing is the founder of the company. Perhaps it's okay to do so if they simply inherited the company or became its CEO through promotions.

Finally, you said that Americans are getting poorer. That's simply not true! We have a higher standard of living today than we did 15 years ago! We have more sources of entertainment now than we did then. If Americans are as poor as you say they are, nobody would be buying all of this new stuff.

P.S. Every one of your sources had a Left-Wing Bias. And with names like "faireconomy.org" and "thinkprogress.org" it's not an easy allegation to deny.
tylergraham95

Pro

"And then, in 2008 when the Recession hit, the Democrats were in charge again."

The democrats were freshly elected yes, but whose policies were in effect? Tax cuts for the rich from G.W. Bush. In fact, the recession actually struck before the dems were actually in office. This statement shows a fundemental lack of understanding of how econmic policy affects the economy. And just a general lack of knowledge regarding economics.



"In contrast, during the totally rad 90s, the Republicans were in charge from 1995 until 2001. This was a period of economic growth."

Actually, Clinton was in charge from 1992-2000. Clinton raised taxes for the wealthy, as I said. You're actually helping my case here.


"And let me put it this way: a President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) can't be as liberal as you think he is."

I don't see how this is relevant.


"I'm sorry if I didn't cover most of your points. But I didn't understand half of that."

Just because you don't understand my argument, doesn't mean that it's wrong. Secondly, as I have the BOP, you must address all of my points.


"John D. Rockefeller gave a lot of money to charity. My source for that claim is Wikipedia.
J.C. Penney tithed 90% of his money.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both gave billions to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
And ultimately, you are proven wrong in this point by "The Giving Pledge," a pledge for billionaires that they will give most of their money to charity. According to the Huffington Post (a ridiculously liberal newspaper), 81 billionaires have already signed the pledge."

You've named a whopping 4 of the countless wealthy americans (Two of which are supporters of the democratic party, the gates and buffett).


"So what is the difference between the rich giving freely and the rich being taxed by the government, you may ask? Well, when the rich give money to the Government, they're giving their money to an inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt entity, which probably wastes 50% of the money it receives."

This is just a totally unbased assertion, that is likely the personal, uneducated, opinion of the Con. Furthermore, giving money to charity exempts you from certain taxes. So your point is 100% invalid.


"Also, let me ask you: is it wrong for wealthy people to have their wealth, to make as much money as they do?"

This is a loaded question (loaded question logical fallacy).
http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you asked "Should the wealthy pay a higher percent of their net worth in taxes than the poor?" Then I would say, yes. It is their social obligation, as they dont necissarily deserve all of the money they have. Look at the Walton children. They didn't work a single day of their life, yet 6 of them are in the top ten richest americans list according to forbes magazine. Do they really deserve to be multi-billionaires? Even though none of them have ever done any real work?

"Finally, you said that Americans are getting poorer. That's simply not true!"

A) I did not say that. B) Sources? C) The income gap is larger than it's ever been.



My opponent tries to dismiss my arguments without sources or even thorough rebuttal. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
bubbatheclown

Con

I apologize to Pro for creating this debate.
I have very little actual understanding of economics, yet I challenged you to this debate. It was foolish of me, and I don't know why the heck I did it. I clearly cannot defeat Pro in this debate. Therefore I concede defeat to my opponent.
Vote for pro!
tylergraham95

Pro

I accept my opponents concession.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
To all DDO Users:
I have created a 2020 Mock Presidential Election, located in the Debate.org forum. If you wish to participate as a candidate, sign up. If you do not wish to participate, feel free to watch and vote anyway.
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
Tick tock, indeed.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
The Clown has fangs!
(I'm just posting to keep this debate at the top of my thingy.)
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
21 hours left. The clock is ticking.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
Testing, testing, one two three!
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
By Reaganomics you are referring to Trickle Down Economics, correct?
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
Or Ronald Reagan should have been convicted of treason and impeached.
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
I would be willing to accept the following topic: Reaganomics are a significant cause of modern economic strife.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
bubbatheclowntylergraham95Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
bubbatheclowntylergraham95Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession