The Instigator
ewo2
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
lewis20
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Republicans were responsible for the lack of progress since 2008, and will be for the next two years

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 7 votes the winner is...
ewo2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,777 times Debate No: 13708
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

ewo2

Pro

I take the Pro position on the resolution.

Round 1 will be used to solely to establish clear contentions.

My contention is as follows:

The republican legislators in the house and senate are to blame for the lack of legislative progress in the past two years that is often pinned on the democratic leadership. Republican senators and representatives have almost universally opposed any legislation brought to the table by democrats for purely political reasons. Republicans will continue this procedure until the 2012 elections (and beyond, depending on the results of those elections).

I look forward to a good debate and ask that my opponent simply post a clear contention in round one.
lewis20

Con

I would contend that the Keynesian policies adopted over the past century by both political parties are to blame for lack of progress since 2008 and will explain it for the future.
Debate Round No. 1
ewo2

Pro

Thanks for accepting the debate challenge. This should be very interesting.

As my opponent's contention is not what I was expecting, I feel it will be easier than I thought to win this debate. In fact, I believe I can I win with one paragraph:

While it is true that the deeply flawed political system in the United States created the conditions that allowed the Republicans to effectively cease any progress in this country, the fact remains that, given the political circumstances we have, the Republicans are to blame for the lack of progress we have made over the past year, and will intentionally prevent the Obama administration from making any progress in the next two years.

I will gladly flesh this argument out if my opponent can effectively combat it.
lewis20

Con

This is all dependent on what definition of progress is used. If you're looking at progress from a socialist/progressive point of view then yes the Republicans are responsible for the lack of expansion in governmental powers...progress.

However I will assume by progress we are talking about economic progress.

point 1) You would have to show me what democrat legislation the republicans blocked, as well as prove this legislation would have generated more economic progress than we have seen.
Debate Round No. 2
ewo2

Pro

If progress can be defined as "development or growth", Republicans are clearly at fault for the lack we have seen since Obama took the presidency. They have blocked important legislation in the economic sector and in many other areas.

Here is an example of partial list of legislation blocked by republicans leading up to the recent midterm elections that, if passed, would have been of great benefit to the United States.

BLOCKED:

- A bill that would have stopped companies from getting tax breaks for moving domestic jobs overseas, such as call centers and manufacturing. Damage: Eliminated US jobs.

- Small Jobs Business Act: blocked once by the republicans, this bill gives small banks and businesses access to billions of loan dollars to encourage the growth of small businesses. Damage: stinted growth of small businesses.

- A bill that gave benefits to homeless war veterans.

- A bill to give health-care assistance to the first responders at Ground Zero after the 9/11 attacks who became sick because of their efforts.

- Provisions in the health care bill (eventually forced through) that barred health care companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, required them to spend 85c on every dollar on actual health care, and structured their profit margins.

- The Jobs bill, which gives tax incentives to companies who hire new employees.

- Wall Street Reform Bill (eventually forced through) designed to prevent big banks from making the risky moves that were largely to blame for the economic crash.

In looking at the above bills, it should be clear that they would either have helped us recover from the economic recession, would have been important to our national defense, or would have made important changes to government and private systems that are clearly broken. With knowledge about the republican creed and constituencies, it can be said that they are simply living up to their principles in voting against the above bills, necessary as they are. However, if proof is needed that republicans are actually opposing these bills solely on the basis of ensuring that the Obama administration does not pass any helpful legisltation, we can look to the following incidences:

- Republicans authored and proposed a bill that would result in serious immigration reform. When Obama endorsed it, they voted against their own bill to ensure it would not be passed.

- Similarly, republicans brought forward a renewal on the START treaty, which is a strategic Arms (nukes) reduction treaty that allows the US to monitor and review nuclear sites in Russia. When Obama endorsed it, those same republicans, even the ones that proposed the bill, voted against it.

- Obama has made it clear that bi-partisanship was and still is important to him. In order to further confirm their disinterest in working together to make progress, republicans opted out of the traditional post-midterm election conference between the leaders of both parties and the president.

- Mitch McConnel, the Senate minority leader, bluntly stated at a post-election speech that the primary goal of the republican party for the next two years is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president.

Progress is against the interest of the republican party, whose stated goal is to remove Obama from office. They are and will be liable for the depth of damage done by this recession and the general lack of anything that can be called progress.

Sources: (http://ak-elections2008.com...)(zdnet.co.uk)(huffingtonpost.com)(politico.com)
lewis20

Con

First of all progress is completely subjective, many would consider progress a movement to a smaller government that adheres to the constitution progress. A lot of people think Government is best which governs least. If it were undisputed that the Government knew all and knows how to fix and run a complicated economy, there wouldn't be an issue. It's too bad theres a growing number of individuals that think the free market is better creating progress.
Progress for the betterment of the country would be abolishing the fed, massive reduction of government, balancing the budget, taking restrictions off small business and moving away from Keynesian economics.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein
I'd vote for the touch of genius

That all being said.

-The bill that wanted to stop tax breaks for business' going overseas...It's opposed by some in the democratic party, including " the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. He has expressed concern that the change would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. "(http://www.cbsnews.com...)
republicans to fault for this is stalled? nope, Obama can't even convince his democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that it's a helpful bill.

-Small Jobs and Business Act has been passed.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov...)

-The bill that "gave benefits to homeless war veterans" that's a bit misleading, the bill "expands" benefits for homeless vets, and the republicans simply wanted a provision to pay for the bill, thus not increasing the massive debt.

-9/11 Health & Compensation Act, not sure where you see it's being blocked by the republicans, all I can find is that it passed the house with a 268 majority, now its jumping through the hoop that is the senate.
(http://www.opencongress.org...)

-The Jobs bill-passed...with 11 republicans
(http://www.nytimes.com...)

-eventually forced through? i'd say that was passed

"It should be clear that they would either have helped us recover from the economic recession, would have been important to our national defense, or would have made important changes to government and private systems that are clearly broken" Why is it assumed the democrats know whats best for the economy? Many would say the bailing out of failure is hurting progress of the country. The excessive spending is not helping progress. The growth the country was going through was unsustainable and the current recession is us paying for it. None of the bills were defense spending.

-Misleading, The bill you refer to was co-authored by John Mccain and supported by only 23 republican senators. The bill went nowhere. Currently the dems are merely using the blueprint of that bill in their own bill. Its not the same bill republicans proposed in 2006.

-When have the republicans voted against the START treaty? From what I've found it hasn't gone to a vote yet.

-I can't find anything about this point

-If I don't agree with someones view of whats best for the country, I wouldn't want him running the country either.

"liable for the depth of damage done by this recession and the general lack of anything that can be called progress."
Government intervention, corporatism and the Federal Reserve are responsible for the damage done by the recession, by inhibiting the free markets ability to regulate economic growth. Massive spending and relief policies simply put off the inevitable and encourage a lack of fiscal responsibility.
Debate Round No. 3
ewo2

Pro

Thanks for bringing up some interesting responses, Con.

I would first like to point out, though, that my opponent has done very little to support his own contention. He has attempted to refute the points I bring up, but did not back up his assertion (which, as I will demonstrate momentarily, is incorrect) with any degree of adequacy.

First things first, I should address his responses to my assertions, as they are directly relevant to my own contention.
-My opponent is correct in stating that the definition of progress is subjective. However, I think it can generally be agreed upon in this context that progress can be viewed as a re-stabilization of the economy, securing the defense capability of the nation, and enabling and open discussion that goes beyond partisan politics. There are all things that the republican party has demonstrably been against.

-If I wanted to, I'm sure I could find as many vaguely theoretical quotations that could be phrased to support my own contention as my opponent could to support his, but unless they are directly and explicitly related to the debate at hand, they have any relevance, and neither does Albert Einstein's.

-With regards to the bill removing tax breaks for companies sending jobs overseas, it really doesn't matter whether a handful of democrats were opposed to the bill. The Republicans were unanimous in their opposition, and in relation to the theme of economic progress, it seems absolutely foolish to attempt to argue that rewarding companies for killing American jobs is a productive measure. The fact of the matter is that unemployment is at record highs, and if Republicans stand in opposition to a bill that would protect American jobs, or at least discontinue the practice of incentivizing the elimination of those jobs, then they truly have no concern for the lasting recovery of the economy. (http://www.cbsnews.com...)

-My opponent is correct in stating that the Small Business Act was passed, but it was initially blocked by Republicans. It was only when the bill was redrafted to address the interests of estate taxes and other big businesses that they agreed to pass it through the Senate.

-On the veteran's assistance expansion bill, I will only say that it seems clear we should provide homeless people who fought our wars to provide us with the freedoms we enjoy with a means to get their lives back on track. My opponent was correct in pointing out that Republicans opposed the bill on principle alone instead of considering its value. The fact of the matter is that the homeless are typically out of work, and creating a path to assist them in getting jobs and turning them into productive members of society rather than liabilities on the system is important. Republicans refuse to pass any bill which adds to the deficit, even if that bill will benefit the economy. Economic stimulus and recovery programs cost an initial investment that leads to returns. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

-I am actually surprised that my opponent has not heard about the republican opposition to the bill providing health care for responders who became ill as a result of working on the 9/11 disaster site, as it has been a big issue. 155 house republicans voted the bill down when it was proposed in July. Again, republicans voted against it because it would add to the deficit. It is a repulsive act of betrayal not to assist those who risked their lives after the 9/11 attacks to help recover from the disaster with their health care bills. (http://www.nytimes.com...)

-In regard to the Jobs bill, it was initially blocked, and the fact that 11 republicans voted for it, while astounding in this partisan political environment, is hardly admirable or demonstrative of unified republican support of the bill.

-The stimulus bill and bailouts for the auto-industry actually DID work and are CONTINUING to work, so my opponent is dead-wrong on this point. The stimulus created 3 million new jobs, some of which were in states governed by republicans (who were very vocally against the bill, but applied for funding post-vote to create jobs in their own states). The stimulus also increased our yearly output by $400 billion. (http://www.usatoday.com...) GM and the auto industrialists who benefited from bailouts have already nearly paid back what the were given, and corporate earnings are at RECORD HIGHS. (http://www.politicsdaily.com...)What republicans and my opponent are too short-sighted to realize is that, in both private and national matters of economy, you have to SPEND MONEY to MAKE MONEY. Investing in programs which help create jobs instead of letting the economy flounder and die is VITAL to economic recovery.

-With regards to the START treaty, my opponent is correct in saying that it has not been voted on yet – what I meant to say was that republicans have pledged to vote it down when the bill is brought. One republican plans to oppose the bill in perpetuity. (http://news.opb.org...)

-As I'm low on characters, I will respond to my opponent's last few points by saying that, regardless of whether or not you agree with who is in the White House, opposing bills that will benefit America based on political grounds is about as anti-progress as it gets.

Republicans have time and time again used the anti-deficit excuse for voting down bills that are incredibly important to our economic recovery and our progress as a humane nation. Republicans, who claim to be champions of the middle-class, are currently holding up a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for people making under 250,000 dollars a year because that bill does not extend the tax cuts for people who make over a quarter-million dollars. This is a vile betrayal to those they portend to represent in government. They have vowed to continue their opposition until the richest 2% of the earners are rewarded the extension on the tax cuts, even if it means that the tax cuts expire and the 98% of Americans who make less than $250,000 will see an increase in tax-rates when the bill expires. If tax cuts are extended to those making over $250,000, it will add $700 billion dollars to the very deficit that republicans so adamantly claim to fight. Ostensibly, republicans are strong in their opposition to bills that add to the deficit, but in reality, they are simply looking for excuses to vote on partisan lines for political gain. (http://www.newsweek.com...)

In summation, republicans have clearly been the obstructers of positive progress and growth in this country, and there is no reason to assume that they won't continue this trend. My opponent claims that Keynesian economic policies, which allow the government to regulate private industry, are at fault for this disaster. However, as we saw in the lead-up to the Great Depression and the more recent crash that created this recession, it is the irresponsible Anti-Keynesian deregulation of business that lead to the disasters. As we observed during the recovery from the Great Depression, it was SPENDING that got us back on track. This is what the Republicans oppose, so instead of progress, we see stagnation.

Thanks to my opponent. Vote Pro.
lewis20

Con

I would still say that there is no proof the particular legislation opposed by republicans would have been led to economic progress.

"partial list of legislation blocked by republicans leading up to the recent midterm elections that, if passed, would have been of great benefit to the United States." There was only one...yes only one piece of legislation from that entire list that has been "blocked by the republicans", the expansion on benefits for homeless vets. The rest of the list included misleading statements a couple downright lies. The statement about the START treaty? completely false. The statement about the immigration reform bill? extremely misleading, borderline false. As for the bill that stops tax breaks for business' going overseas,your statement "it seems absolutely foolish to attempt to argue that rewarding companies for killing American jobs is a productive measure" is incorrect, there is obviously something else to this bill. I haven't read the bill to know, however I can say if 11 democrats, including the democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee voted against it, there isn't unanimous consent amongst the democrats the bill would be helpful. So how can the rest of us be sure it was helpful?

-The infamous stimulus bill and bailouts. The claim that the stimulus did and is continuing to work I would say is false. Obama claimed the stimulus bill would curve unemployment at 8%, it didn't. I don't see how anyone can say this bill worked, the 3 million jobs CREATED? I guess I'm not intelligent enough to comprehend how a bill can create jobs and help the economy grow, all while unemployment reaches near 10%. As for the bailouts, I don't see how rewarding failure is helpful to the progress of our country.

For the last point, all I can see is regurgitation of Obama talking points and not a look at the real issues. The argument put forward assumes expansion in government powers is helpful. If proof existed the federal government knew what was best for the country this would all be a non issue. However we can't simply assume Keynesian economics and an ever expanding list of Federal Government powers and responsibilities contribute to economic progress.

I'll end with a vaguely theoretical quotation
"Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us." Milton Friedman

Thanks to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lewis20 6 years ago
lewis20
Sorry disregard my comment
Posted by ewo2 6 years ago
ewo2
Nothing I said was false, if that's what you're accusing me of. You can check my sources.
Posted by lewis20 6 years ago
lewis20
I feel like blatant lies shouldn't be a detracting factor for debates.
Posted by JuicyBabe13 6 years ago
JuicyBabe13
Totally agree with ewo2.
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
well the Liberals are doing a heck of a job dpubleing the lack of progress for the next eight years
Posted by ewo2 6 years ago
ewo2
yeah my r2 post is basically a pass because i want to see what his case is going to look like
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Really the opposing party has *always* been to blame for inaction.
Posted by ewo2 6 years ago
ewo2
Nah this should be interesting because I actually agree with you. Interested to hear what you have to say about it, and I can defend my position.
Posted by lewis20 6 years ago
lewis20
If you were lookin for somebody to just argue it was the democrats fault let me know
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
i feel roy will take this
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 6 years ago
Aaronroy
ewo2lewis20Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by clucas 6 years ago
clucas
ewo2lewis20Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:60 
Vote Placed by Elmakai 6 years ago
Elmakai
ewo2lewis20Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
ewo2lewis20Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
ewo2lewis20Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
ewo2lewis20Tied
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:50 
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
ewo2lewis20Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23