The Instigator
Everett
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
dairygirl4u2c
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Reaganomics worked

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
dairygirl4u2c
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,690 times Debate No: 35154
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Everett

Pro

I believe Reaganomics works because since taxes were lowered it was easier for the businesses to create jobs. When you have more people RECEIVING money, then that's more people that the government can tax therefore leading to a higher tax revenue.

Reaganomics simply lowers taxes meaning that you get to keep more of your money. When you have more money, you spend more on goods and services like that new TV or video game that just came out. When competitors realize that that TV or video game is making money then the market becomes more competitive.

Reaganomics also lowered unemployment from 10.8 to 5.3 percent.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

no one disputes that cutting taxes can stimulate the economy, or that giving rich people tax cuts can cause some trickle down effect.
but to really say it "worked", you have to assume it caused signficant growth and was for the well being of the country.

reagan was the initiator of our seventeen trillion dollar debt, it rose of significantce, just as bad if not worst, in his presidency than any other recent president. so first off we have a debt we now have to pay for.

secondly reaganomics should be considered the best approach, to say it "worked". maybe in the 80s when were a lot larger in expanding our country's infrastructue, it was more warranted. but even then, and especially now, the focus should not be on supply side, but demand side.
when the middle class has more money, they buy more unique products, they are the engine of the economy. they can buy a boat, whereas a poor person would just add more output to common necessities like shirts. more economies are built with focus on the middle class. reaganomics usually assumes trickle down, but the most direct route is not via the rich,but via the middle class.
also, if we are going to give tax cuts, we might as well give them to people who create jobs, or do something beneficial to society, like starting a business or doing something "green" or something else of value. giving blanket tax cuts is inefficent use of tax cuts, and all around then isn't the optimal method to use.

again, no one says reaganomics doesn't have some stimulant effect, and is not totally worthless. but when we got bills to pay, and there are better ways to stimulate the economy, it can't really be said to "work".

*as to the employment numbers they don't mean much of anything. unemployment shrunk wth higher tax brackets of clinton, and were higher with the historical higher taxes in the past. also other countries have higher taxes, and yet decent employment numbers.
Debate Round No. 1
Everett

Pro

I believe Reaganomics works because since taxes were lowered it was easier for the businesses to create jobs. When you have more people RECEIVING money, then that's more people that the government can tax therefore leading to a higher tax revenue.

Reaganomics simply lowers taxes meaning that you get to keep more of your money. When you have more money, you spend more on goods and services like that new TV or video game that just came out. When competitors realize that that TV or video game is making money then the market becomes more competitive.

Reaganomics also lowered unemployment from 10.8 to 5.3 percent.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

then we just have to disagree what should constitute "works". there are better ways to stimulate the economy than blanket tax cuts, and there was actually a lot of harm done by reagan's tax cuts for example the massive debt.

i already address how unemployment doesn't really follow from his tax cuts, any more than low unemployment follows with Clinton's higher taxes and historical figures and other countires that also show that to be true.

like i said, no one disputes it doesn't cause a stimulant effect. but considering the bigger picture, that doesn't mean it "works".
Debate Round No. 2
Everett

Pro

The massive debt was only caused by the massive military build up Reagan wanted. And it payed off. The Soviet Union couldn't keep up and dropped out of the Cold War. Now, the debt drawn up was only because there was a deficit in Reagan's first years of office because it took a little while to convert the system over to Reaganomics. And don't forget that the Democrats were massive spenders and blocked many of Reagan's tax and spending cuts.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

if you want to argue that we should have gone through reaganomics even if it meant us going into debt, in order to squash the communists etc, sure whatever. but that doesn't mean we should do, as your thesis seems to suggest, reaganomics in order to maximize our economic returns as a society. the reason youve not shown this is because all youve argued is the communist thing, and not how reaganmics are better than other alternatives, or that the debt is worth it in general if we dont have communist issues. if you cant show these things, and you havent even attempted ot argue it... it's highly misleading and basically wrong to think reaganomics "worked"
Debate Round No. 3
Everett

Pro

Well let's talk about Keynesian Economics. Keynes suggested that when an Economy crashed, it was the Government's job to get the market going again. Where as F.A. Hayek said that the government should allow the forces of Free-will and a Free-Market capitalist system sort out the problem. Keynesian Economics was proven wrong during the Great Depression and the 2008 Recession. The New Deal spent massive amount of money to make jobs. Nothing happened.In fact, some may argue it got worse. Many people say WWII ended the Great Depression but not directly. When WWII started, many New Deal programs were frozen so more money could go the Military. There was a big debate going on after the end of WWII to reboot the New Deal but Republicans said no.

The 2008 Recession was when the Government pumped massive amounts of money into the Market. Unemployment has gone down very slightly. After every Economic Crash, there is always a massive boom a few years later. This recovery we're in now is painfully sluggish.

Now,how do we know that when unemployment went down under Reagan that it was just the economy acting in a natural way? Because in 3-5 years, unemployment dropped from 10.8 percent to 5.3 percent. That is one of the biggest and fastest drops in US Economic history. Many people also attribute the booming 90's to Reagan as well. Since Reagan's policies killed the USSR economically, we didn't have to spend as much money on the Military.

Reagan also knew how to get the most out of the worker too. You see, Reagan didn't think that the existence of Unions was a bad thing, he embraced them. Hell, he was a leader of one. But he saw that they gained too much power and that the Unions were starting to be the useless weight. Just like how dangerous working conditions used to exist in the working place. Reagan cut Union powers and regulations making the Market have risk but have protection from stupid gambling.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

so it looks like you're not trying to address that better alternatives "worked" or not, but wish to switch gears to unrelated topics like Keynes v none etc. plus you are going all over the place, talking about unions etc too. not sure why, will address the points but they are all off.

if you accept that the economy improved significantly after the depression and WWII then i dont have to cite the obvious studies showing it. but in your attempt to debunk Keynes by saying it was caused by WWII, you are in fact backing up Keynes. WWII is the government spending money, even if it's not on social programs like the New Deal etc. just because it's war spending and more republican doesn't mean it's not government spending. it almost seems like you are basing your beliefs on party lines and reasoning yourself into silly situations.
Keynes makes sense, if you put money in the economy during a depression, it will cause stuff to happen. when stuff happens, the economy improves. some say we didnt do enough with the bail out of Obama. we do know that the economy is improving significantly since then even if slow, and that we didnt fall into deep depression etc. perhaps we'd have been better to give tax cuts instead of spending, not claiming it's always best to spend money. but that doesn't mean Keynes doesnt have some merit to it, particularly if it's a program we should be morally focusing on anyway, or should have. we shouldnt think government spending is without base. if the government stopped pending money right now the market would crash, they are like a third or massive percentage of our economy. healthcare, social security, etc, massive people spend massive amounts etc.

you just seem to take whatever rhetoric you can find and argue it with little in the way of substance, ike saying Clinton good years was caused by reagan. truth is it was probably mostly capital gains being lower, spending being lowered, and internet and productivity inherent fixes in our economy. nothing to do with the president. yet you want to say it was reagan. you are basically allowing yourself to think you can never be wrong, by allowing yourself to make any connetion that has any logic at all to it, and attributing anything good to Reagan.

perhaps reagan caused unemployment to fall quicker. i wouldnt stress reagan's policies so much though, cause history other countires etc show that we can have low unemployment with higher taxes etc. it's not all connected as much as you think.
again, to say reagonmics works, you have to justify it the way ive been saying but for the most part you are arguing off point topics, and at best maybe he helped unemployment fall faster.

unions aren't always good or bad, reagan just recognized that. there's not much to argue about here. it's way off topic anyways.
reaganomics has to do with tax cuts, and trickle down, remember.
Debate Round No. 4
Everett

Pro

I don't think you understood my WWII statement. What I said, or at least what I meant, was that since the New Deal Programs were frozen the Market could get back to normal since all this BS spending was stopped. You have to remember that the US government was buying from the private sector.

Unemployment under Clinton only shrank because of Reagan's policies that were still in place. As well, Clinton also had a Republican congress/senate so most of his policies weren't passed Congress.
As well, Clinton lowered taxes too. The Taxpayer relief program(1997) reduced some Federal Taxes so it's unfair to say that Clinton just raised them.

As well, the debt under Reagan only increased because of all the Military spending he ordered and in took a few years for the Market to switch over to Reaganomics because the government was receiving less money.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

reagan lowered taxes, so we can't blame the debt on just the military. if he hadnt lowered them we wouldnt have such high debt.
also to think it was all military spending is just a bit naive. i looked into it and could cite more, but it was more than just militay spending back then, we had big government back then too. which means it covered a wide range of issues.

i dont know what you mean that new deal program spending was frozen. and you say the government was buying from the private sector, but that's actually keynes notions.
you keep forgetting that the main point isn't keynes or not, its whether there are better alteranatives to blaneket tax cuts, and whether trickle down is worth it. youve not really touched this with much of anything.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Everett 3 years ago
Everett
SEE THIS IMPORTANT!!!
I accidentally re-posted the same argument,sorry. Okay, to start with your point about High vs. low taxes, low taxes do stimulate more job growth. Other countries with high taxes only create low paying jobs. In the Great Recession back '08 the majority of jobs lost were Middle class jobs. That's how this mess started. Places with high taxes have a hard time coming out of Depressions and recessions. Just look at how long it took for the US to get out of the Great Depression with FDR's "tax the rich" plans and the Alphabet soup deals. Reagan brought up a massive debt because we went through a massive military build up that eventually defeated the Soviet Union. But later, we had a surplus under Clinton that many people credit Ronald Reagan with. And many of Clinton's tax raises were under the Information age when computers were taking off so it would have taken the end of the world to happen to stop that.
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
Yes it did work!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by guesswhat101 3 years ago
guesswhat101
Everettdairygirl4u2cTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither used any real concrete data to back up their claims and the debate used very general ideas. Because of this, Con failed to win me over.
Vote Placed by RedDebater 3 years ago
RedDebater
Everettdairygirl4u2cTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con responded successfully to Pro's statements through well-thought out arguments. While I'll admit to being biased towards an anti-reaganomics argument before the debate, the conduct of Con was more than sufficient to debunk Pro's arguments. Pro simply kept restating the same argument over and over again that trickle-down economics worked and, when Con disproved that several times, Pro completely changed the argument into not one of a defense of a trickle-down system but instead to an attack on a keynesian system. Despite this being against the basic unwritten rules of a straight-forward debate, Con maintained her composition and successfully responded to this new argument in a fair manner. To think that this wasn't enough, Pro decided to turn back to his original argument while still incorporating aspects of his anti-keynesian argument as well. At this point in the debate, they were near the end of their rounds so Con could only say so much to refute this point, yet nevertheless won.