The Instigator
qwertyytrewq01943
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SkepticalDebatee
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Republicans better handle the economy than Democrats

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
SkepticalDebatee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 872 times Debate No: 54766
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

qwertyytrewq01943

Pro

First round acceptance only
SkepticalDebatee

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
qwertyytrewq01943

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge to my debate. I believe it is a sign that our democratic system of government is healthy when two citizens can freely and openly debate political issue and opinions without the interference of the state.

First off, let me begin by stating that the Republican economic plan has the goal of reducing un essay government regulations, getting rid of government programs which aren't working but draining the countries finances, and helping all families achieve a state of self-sustaining economic prosperity.

To begin my main argument, I would like to discuss challenges and economic issues that are of great concern today. One of the largest economic endeavors democrats have perished recently is the Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare by most. Despite reaching the 8,000,000 people sign up mark it is still experiencing many problems and setbacks. It has caused premiums in nearly all states to go up and is actually causing many people to loose their health insurance or chane their plans. This is one of countless examples that show that show that the Democratic Party wins elections and runs the country on false promises and weak leadership as President Barrack Obama insisted that "if you like your plan you can keep it". When the program was first launched it was completley disastrous. They had nearly 3 years to fix and test the program as it was passed into law in 2010 but did not take effect until October 2013. In addition, it cost the American public nearly $300 million dollars just to fix the technical problems with the website. The Republican plan is to create a whole new program which will work after the current one is repealed. Mitt Romney created a health plan for the people of Massachusetts which worked very well. In fact many suspect that the Democrats got the idea of Obamacare from Romney's program. However, the difference is that Obamacare is currently failing in Massachusetts and can not get off it's feet.

In order to get out of this economic struggle that has been plaguing our country since the year 2008 is to get the unemployment levels down by creating more jobs. If families have a source of income then they will have more money to spend which will help the economy grow. In order to do that we must focus on the backbone and base of the American economy and that is the small business. Small businesses can grow and help create new jobs which is why the government must allow them to expand and grow. Democratic policies, however, have so many regulations and restrictions that a major strain is placed upon small businesses. Obamacare, for example, has a mandate which states that businesses who have 30 employees or more must provide their employees with health insurance. On paper that sounds wonderful but it is not. In fact this policy may cause many jobs to be lost. What if, for example, a small business with 33 employees can just barely scrape up enough revenue to survive. It can't afford to provide 33 people with health insurance making it have to lay off a few workers to get below the 30 cut off line. Minimum wage for example as well. Many democrats wish to raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars nearly doubling it. Now I agree it should be raised gradually and comfortably once things improve, but if you take such a huge jump and nearly double it then the business I mentioned earlier with 33 employees will now basically have to pay for 40 or more workers technically when those that are being payed minimum wage are taken into account. Once again that is unstable.

Democrats in government also love to spend money. But how can they let the government spend more than it is taking in? That's disgraceful we are supposed to be a role model and the strongest country on Earth we can't let that happen. Under the Obama administration the 5 deficits so far under it have been the largest ever in US history. This president is spending more money than all 43 previous presidents combined. And when they reform the budget they would rather cut back on the military and education and raise taxes rather than cutting off funding to programs that aren't working efficiently which is what Republicans want to do. Democrats are quick to say that Republicans just want to cut back the wealthy's taxes by billions of dollars but that simply is just not true. Republicans want lower taxes and a better government budget that doesn't hurt the economy.
SkepticalDebatee

Con

Democrats handle the economy better than Republicans.

First let's look at the Republican side. The Republican position on economics has been founded on the tactics of Ronald Reagan. These beliefs promote a flat/gradual tax, low government spending, minimal regulation of businesses and tightening the money supply in order to reduce inflation. Firstly Reagan couldn't uphold his promise to cut spending. During his terms he spent 22.4% of GDP. The average from 1971 to 2009 was 20.6%. The public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. Public debt went from 712 billion dollars to 2.052 trillion dollars over his term. [2] The extreme top income tax cuts (70% to 28%) have caused massive problems. Not only is the idea that this will cause more employment from now wealthier businessmen unsubstantiated, [3] but because CEO's are far more likely to take large sums of money with lower taxes employees get less and less money. This caused explosive income inequality. [4] Not only is this bad for individuals, but it is bad for the economy overall. Stagnating wages hurt the middle class, which causes them to buy less products, which causes companies to earn less, which causes lower profits, which causes layoffs, which causes more income inequality. [5] Clearly Republican economic strategies have failed.

The Democratic side promotes progressive tax, welfare spending and business regulation. All of these things battle income inequality, which I have shown to be a cycling and massive problem. Clearly Democrats handle the economy better than Republicans. For anyone not convinced/in need for more information can just look at this website. [6]

1. http://www.econlib.org...
2. http://www.cbo.gov...
3. http://www.nytimes.com...;
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
5. http://robertreich.org...
6. http://www.dailykos.com...
Debate Round No. 2
qwertyytrewq01943

Pro

I would like to start this round by stating my opponent's previous argument is completely flawed.

My opponent blamed President Ronald Reagan for bad economics by telling only half of the story and using oversimplified facts to support his argument. I would like to set the record straight by stating that the Ronald Reagan administration inherited the worst American economy in the 20th Century since the Great Depression from the Carter administration. As my opponent pointed out the income tax rate for the wealthy during this time period was approximately 70%. If that's not a high tax rate my friends then I don't know what is. Regardless of who you are and how much wealth you have you shouldn't be punished or held down by the government with high tax rates. The Democrats would like you to believe that cutting taxes only benefits the wealthy and creates a massive inequality problem. That is false. Cutting taxes eases the strain placed on businesses and benefits everyone. I am aware that she was not an American politician however she makes this point clear that liberals do not see that tax cuts benefits everyone not just the wealthy in the following you tube video:

I would like to further point out that unemployment rates under the Carter administration hovered around 7.5% and increased to nearly 10.5% in the first few months of the Reagan administration due to the final effects being felt by Carter economics. Reagan was able to shift the economy back in gear and the unemployment rate fell to 5.4% when he left the white house. According to USA today, "the rest of Reagan's presidency was characterized by tremendous economic success. Inflation declined to 3.71 percent in 1983 and averaged 4.4 percent for the eight-year period. GDP growth turned positive and averaged about 3.8 percent per year. Much of this success was attributed to Reagan's position on taxes and the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982." It is clear that Ronald Reagan did the complete opposite of what my opponent claims and achieved substantial success for the economy.

Under the current Democratic president our economy is growing at 1.4%, half the rate it was when Reagan took office. Further statistics show that barely half of college graduates can't find work today. In the country that is supposed to be the "land of opportunity" our own college graduates can't find work? That, to me, is disgusting.

History has mostly shown, with a few minor exceptions, that the majority of Republican administrations and governments have handled the economy better than democrats. They spend more conservatively and ensure that there is always economic growth and opportunity for all.
SkepticalDebatee

Con

I shall now provide a rebuttal of my opponents arguments.

"It has caused premiums in nearly all states to go up and is actually causing many people to loose their health insurance or chane their plans." This is a statement from the Obamacare website on this. "The primary cause of the insurance premium rate hikes under ObamaCare is the requirement for insurers to cover high-risk consumers. Insurance companies can no longer deny Americans with pre-existing conditions and can't charge higher rates based on health status or gender. These factors, along with a few other required benefits, rights and protections (like the elimination of lifetime and annual dollar limits) have led to rate increases over the past few years. The good news is that many Americans can now get reduced premium rates and lower out-of-pocket costs by enrolling in a plan on their State's health insurance marketplace." [1] This means that increases are not caused through any malevolent goals. It also shows that insurance rates have been rising faster than inflation since 1999. Another thing that you fail to mention is that the way Obamacare works people who earn more pay higher rates, while those who earn less pay less. Progressive taxes as I have shown benefit the economy. Someone who earns 400 times as much as someone else won't spend 400 times as much thereby reducing economic stimulus.

"In addition, it cost the American public nearly $300 million dollars just to fix the technical problems with the website." First f all this isn't so much of a faulty economic plan as just an issue with a website. Secondly this is a lie it only cost 121 million dollars. [2]

"Mitt Romney created a health plan for the people of Massachusetts which worked very well. In fact many suspect that the Democrats got the idea of Obamacare from Romney's program. However, the difference is that Obamacare is currently failing in Massachusetts and can not get off it's feet." I am so confused about this argument. It is true that Obamacare is based on Mitt Romney's health plan in Massachusetts, but Republicans didn't like it, and Romney later stated he wanted to change the plan. [2]

My opponent then goes into a hypothetical-useless. However companies being forced to provide health care does provide benefits that are in no way hypothetical. It can prevent job-lock, someone not leaving a job because they want to keep their health care. [3] This also reduces the amount that the government has to spend each year on those that are uninsured. [4]

"Many democrats wish to raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars nearly doubling it." Currently minimum wage increase talk is circling at around $10.10 (a number set by Obama) constantly adjusting for inflation. Raising the minimum wage is of course good as it fights income inequality. [5] You even agree. "In order to get out of this economic struggle that has been plaguing our country since the year 2008 is to get the unemployment levels down by creating more jobs. If families have a source of income then they will have more money to spend which will help the economy grow." Higher wages, of course, mean more money to spend.

"Under the Obama administration the 5 deficits so far under it have been the largest ever in US history. This president is spending more money than all 43 previous presidents combined." Actually each year the president has been in office the deficit has shrunk. While the 2009 deficit was the largest of all time, but thus was actually a budget set up by George W. Bush, and approved by Congress 4 months before Obama took the oath of office. [6]

"And when they reform the budget they would rather cut back on the military and education and raise taxes rather than cutting off funding to programs that aren't working efficiently which is what Republicans want to do." The way the military budget is spent is the definition of inefficient. [7] It also takes 20% of all tax dollars to make it by a long, long way the biggest military in the world. [8] I am not sure were you get the idea that Democrats want to cut school spending, but it is in fact very inefficient as well. [9]

1. http://obamacarefacts.com...
2. http://www.washingtontimes.com...
3. http://www.nytimes.com...
4. http://www.cnn.com...
5. http://www.businessweek.com...
6. http://www.forbes.com...
7. http://www.nytimes.com...
8. http://www.nbcnews.com...
9. http://www.city-journal.org... http://www.businessinsider.com...
Debate Round No. 3
qwertyytrewq01943

Pro

In this round I will counter my opponents main arguments and conclude my argument.

My opponent and the rest of the democrats seem to be failing the American people in terms of economics. Their new healthcare law, "Obamacare", is supposedly intended to make it easier for Americans to attain access to health insurance and to help alleviate the costs a little. However, we have witnessed the exact opposite. My opponent claims that "Another thing that you fail to mention is that the way Obamacare works people who earn more pay higher rates, while those who earn less pay less." If that were a fact then there wouldn't be countless incidents of patients that come from ordinary middle and working class families that end up paying hundreds more in medical costs than they would've under their original health plan. Those who made the law have had a very long time since its passage to ensure that everything is in working order and that there won't be problems however the roll out of the program was an utter and complete disaster. The website wasn't working, people couldn't sign up, some people's personal information wouldn't go through to the companies, and have i mentioned higher premiums yet? The law is also complete damaging small businesses and individuals as well. The law is essentially forcing everyone in the US to purchase health insurance whether they want to or not, whether they can afford to or not. If you refuse to participate then you will be forced to pay a fee anyways. Where is the liberty in that? How is that helping Americans get cheaper high quality healthcare? I don't think it is doing that at all.

As to the progressive tax system. I do agree that everyone be paying fair taxes. However is a 70% tax rate fair? President Obama called on Congress to allow a tax hike on families and businesses making more than $250,000. New and higher taxes will not create jobs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "higher marginal tax rates do reduce economic activity." President Obama"s tax hike plan will hurt the ability of small businesses to innovate, invest, and hire.

" The Economy is Weaker than When All Tax Rates Were Extended: At the time of the 2010 tax rate extension, GDP growth was 3.1 percent and President Obama said that raising taxes "would have been a blow to our economy." GDP growth over the last four quarters has been 2.0 percent.

" One Out of Four Employees Works at Businesses Hit: Businesses employing 25 percent of the American workforce would be hit with higher taxes.

" Majority of Small Business Income Affected: An estimated 53 percent of all business income reported on individual tax returns will be affected by the President's tax increase.

" One Million Small Businesses Caught: Approximately 940,000 small businesses would be hit by President Obama"s tax hike.

" America"s Competitiveness Hurt. Raising the dividend and capital gains rates will result in a 68.6 percent integrated dividend tax rate (the highest among industrialized countries) and a 56.7 percent integrated capital gains tax rate, second highest among these nations (behind Italy). Such a high rate will drive investment and jobs overseas.

In addition, Democrats continue creating expensive government funded programs that really don't help all that much even though the deficit is extremely high (one of the highest in all of American history) and the debt is spiraling out of control. What do they do about it? Simply raise the debt ceiling and hope that the debt will miraculously decrease. When ever the debt reaches the fiscal cliff Democrats simply eliminate that dilemma in raising the debt ceiling. Well, how is that supposed to lower the debt and increase the national economy and economic growth? The answer to that is that it won't. My opponent also claimed that the high deficit of 2009 was caused by Bush (typical statement by a Democrat) but my opponent failed to recognize that the Democratic party controlled both houses of congress from 2007 to 2011. And it is congress's job to make the budget and approve it, so the Democrats made the budget and approved it with their political power in 2008, Bush simply just signed it.

The Republican plan is different. It will stop the losing of millions of jobs under the Democratic plan and create millions that have already been lost. It will lead families back on a path of family prosperity and self sustainability once more and get the US economy going again.

Some Food For Thought in the posted you tube video:
SkepticalDebatee

Con

I will now rebuild my case.

"I would like to set the record straight by stating that the Ronald Reagan administration inherited the worst American economy in the 20th Century since the Great Depression from the Carter administration." This is quite an ironic argument as Jimmy Carters economic presidency was marked by several conservative decisions. Namely, marking down the top capital gains tax from 98% to 28%. [1] In reality however the biggest cause of bad economics in the Carter administration was the 1979 energy crisis. This was caused due to reduced oil output in Iran from the Iranian revolution. While global oil supply only decreased by 4% there was a mass overreaction which caused the crisis. [2]

"Cutting taxes eases the strain placed on businesses and benefits everyone." Then provide me some evidence!

" I am aware that she was not an American politician however she makes this point clear that liberals do not see that tax cuts benefits everyone not just the wealthy in the following you tube video:" Democrats aren't socialists. [3]

"Under the current Democratic president our economy is growing at 1.4%, half the rate it was when Reagan took office." All you show here is that Jimmy Carters presidency saw 2.8% growth rates.

My opponent gives some statistics about good things that happened under president Reagan's presidency. The problem is that he can't actually show that these were a result of his policies. Here is another article that explains why cutting taxes does not create more jobs. [4]

"History has mostly shown, with a few minor exceptions, that the majority of Republican administrations and governments have handled the economy better than democrats." Not true at all. Historically who is economically better isn't even a debate. [5]

My opponent has failed to provide sources, and when confronted to prove that economic policies are good or bad (rather than just good or bad things occurring) he has failed. For these reasons I can see no other vote than con.

1. http://www.ctj.org...
2. http://www.heritage.org...
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
4. http://people.stern.nyu.edu...
5. http://www.forbes.com...
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
qwertyytrewq01943SkepticalDebateeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments were relatively equal (I did begin to lean slightly towards con, but not so much as to give him the win). However, the conduct and sources points will go to con, as con was the only one that provided sources, and pro repeatedly referred to con as "they", associating him with democrats, and placing videos which could be associated with misconduct based on their content into his arguments.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
baus
qwertyytrewq01943SkepticalDebateeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The 'sources' vote was a simple matter of Con having many reliable ones and Pro having none. S&g was perfect for Con and Pro had a couple of slip-ups to do with punctuation and capitalizing the brand name YouTube but it wasn't bad enough to lose that point in my opinion. Con had backed everything up with credible sources whereas Pro was relying on baseless subjective opinion as the basis for his and got torn at for this, successfully, by Con. Conduct was equally good.