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

Ron Paul's Economic Policies are Superior to Barack Obama's

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: 2/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,861 times Debate No: 20951
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I saw a debate like this earlier, and I want to be in one. The first round is for acceptance.


I accept. May we be judged on the strength of our arguments and not the politics of our positions.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Point 1: Ron Paul's Tax Plan is perfect for today's economy.

His tax plan involves a significant reduction in taxes, including a significant reduction in taxes to the rich and taxes to corporations, and the tax rate is too progressive, and the taxes don't even do anything. "During the stock market crash, the recovery started in 1934, in 1937 taxes were raised causing the economy to plunge back to where it was in 1934."[1]

Why is lowering taxes important?
Lowering taxes allows the regular citizen to have more cash in his or her pocket, which makes them feel more secure financially in a recession. Not to mention, some of this extra money can go to buy stuff which increases GDP. "Income taxes should be cut because the overall tax burden is quite high right now. As of the third quarter of 2000, federal revenues as a share of the gross domestic product hit a peacetime high of 20.8 percent. Prosperity has made Americans more accepting of the rising tax burden, but the current economic slowdown will make high taxes harder to bear."[2]

Why is lowering taxes for the rich important? One, they buy big ticket items such as mansions, yachts, expensive cars, etc... All of the purchases get factored in to GDP. The more a country spends, the higher it's GDP is. Lowering taxes for the rich would allow them to buy more of these big ticket items, which would thus increase GDP. But more importantly, two, they create and maintain businesses. Most of the big and medium sized corporations are owned by rich people. If you decrease taxes, that is more the rich can spend on businesses. The more the spend on businesses, the more products that are available at a lower price (which intices consumers to buy, especially in a recession), which in turn increases GDP. Also, the rich can give raises to their employees, spend money to fix working equipment, and make the employee feel more comfortable and safe. Also, they will expand or create new businesses, which increases GDP and decreases unemployment. "Meanwhile, the 53% of Americans who are paying income taxes are relentlessly slandered as "greedy" and "selfish" for not being willing to hand over EVEN MORE of the money that they worked for in order to pay for benefits for other people. In other words, we have a lot of people in America who want more services from the government, but they are demanding that other people pay for it."[3]

Why is lowering taxes for corporations important? If you lower taxes for corporations, that allows the business to have a higher profit. Profit means wage increases, safer working conditions, and most importantly, expansion. All of these things allow the employee to feel more secure financially, allow the employee to feel safer working, and allow the employee to enjoy his work more. And expansion, as I said earlier, increases GDP and decreases unemployment. Why? Because to expand, you need construction workers, materials, building permits, and other things. This buying increases GDP. On top of that, the expansion allows the business to produce more, which increases GDP. And it decreases unemployment because expansion requires more workers. "Hewlett-Packard says that it saves $1 billion a year in taxes by operating in some countries where it's "wholly exempt from taxes," resulting in a 21% rate. Apple's overseas cash hoard leapt from $17.4 billion in 2009 to $30.8 billion in 2010, in part because its intellectual property is owned by foreign subsidiaries."[4] This also means that if corporate taxes are too high, businesses will go elsewhere, therefore, we lose their GDP contribution entirely.

Why is the tax rate too progressive? One because 47% of the population pays no taxes, and the other 53% are decried for being greedy, when they are the ones paying the taxes! And on top of that, the rich are even more decried for being greedy, and yet the poor pay no taxes and the rich pay a 45% tax rate! This is very unfair. Also, the poor are not really poor. "Here's a lesson in economics for OWS. Explain to the 99% that they are actually in the 5% of richest people on the planet. Then take their wealth and redistribute it to the 95% of the world that is poorer than them. See how they feel about wealth redistribution then."[5]

Why are the taxes worthless? One, they don't go to decrease the deficit, they go to increase Government Spending on social programs that put us in an even bigger deficit. And two, the taxes that go to fund these social programs just encourage a longer recession and a longer high rate of unemployment. "Federal spending has gone up 84% under Obama.""Since that's the case and we still have a liberal President and a liberal majority in the Senate, it's entirely possible that every new dime of tax revenue would be spent — and then some."[3]

Point 2: Ron Paul's government hands-off approach to the economy is perfect.

Ron Paul knows that there is too much Government regulation of business today. With less regulation, that gives more money in the hands of corporations, which again, increases GDP and decreases unemployment. Businesses always have to worry about useless environmental regulations that cost money, they have to worry about workers conditions laws that cost money, and they have to worry about other business regulations that cost them money. "Government has been calling the plays while ordinary Americans ride the bench. But when the game is on the line, it's time to give the real playmakers the ball. The answer to too much government isn't more government."[6] ""The current regulatory burden coming out of Washington far exceeds the federal government's constitutional mandate, and it's hurting job creation in our country at a time when we can't afford it," Cantor's fellow House Republican, Speaker John Boehner, said in a speech to the Economic Club of Washington last week."[7]. Reduce regulations, increase profit.

He also knows that the economy can correct itself. He knows economies will punish businesses who provide bad working conditions or bad salaries. "Our government frenzy of throwing $6.3 trillion dollars in bailout money at our economy will have long reaching effects on our national debt and our ability to borrow money. It is political, short sighted, and inefficient. And ultimately taxpayers will be paying for the political gains of our economically illiterate Congress."[8].

Point 3: Ron Paul's fiscal and monetary policy is a lot better than Obama's.

His fiscal policy involves cutting one trillion from federal spending each year, veto unbalanced budgets, and would never raise the debt ceiling. This all would in turn, decrease the federal deficit significantly over a 10 year period and would get America out of foreign dependency. "Saying no to the debt ceiling," correctly saying they would raise the national debt ceiling anyway to avoid severe financial disruption."[9] The danger in Obama's fiscal policy is that he keeps spending way too much, and will eventually send us into default.

His monetary policy involves a full audit of the federal reserve, which is long overdue, considering they have misplaced several billion dollars over the years, then eventually end the fed so as to get rid of the terrible system of central banking. "Given that Paul is about the only one in Congress willing to fight this fight, he merits support, even if that support is occasionally critical."[10]



It appears my opponent has already conceded the proposition. The proposition was "Ron Paul's Economic Policies are Superior to Barack Obama's." While my opponent has spoken favorably of Ron Paul's economic policies he has at no point advanced an argument why the are superior to Barack Obama's. So as to not win purely on a technical mistake by my opponent, I will argue that Ron Paul's economic policies are not superior to those of Barack Obama. However, I do not wave any arguments by doing so.

My opponent also has some serious sourcing problems. Many of his citations are to forum posts or blog posts of random people on the internet. I do not have space to refute each and every one, but I will do so where necessary below. I reserve the right to raise this objection again if needed in a subsequent round.

First a definition:

merriam-webster: Superior
: of higher rank, quality, or importance [1]

My Opponent must show Paul's economic policies are of higher rank, quality, or importance than Obama's. Since economic policies do not have rank the first part is irrelevant. Since Obama is the president and Paul is not[2], Obama's policies are clearly of higher importance. All that is left is quality. I will attempt to show that Paul's policies are not higher quality than Obama's.

First I note my opponent has made no attempt to demonstrate the opposite. In fact my opponent only mentioned Obama three times in his argument. I will demonstrate how none of these establish the superiority of Paul's economic policies.

1. "Federal spending has gone up 84% under Obama" Even if this were true (it's not) my opponent makes no argument why Obama's policies are responsible for this nor why it is a bad result. He states that federal spending has risen and invites the reader to assume that this is bad per se, yet makes no argument why it should be. Moreover, his facts are not correct. My opponent cites a conservative blog [4] for his 84% number. A chart of the actual expenditures are available at [3]. If you notice, government spending has gone from $3.2T to $3.7T during Obama's term, a gain of 15% not 84%.

2. "Ron Paul's fiscal and monetary policy is a lot better than Obama's" This is a conclusary statement and no comparison is made between actual policies. My opponent is basically just restating the proposition.

3. "The danger in Obama's fiscal policy is that he keeps spending way too much, and will eventually send us into default." This is again conclusary. My opponent gives no indication of how much spending is "too much" or why the current policies will send us into default. He can't, of course, because the U.S. cannot be forced to default from overspending. Warren Buffet addressed this issue saying "The U.S., to my knowledge owes no money in currency other than the U.S. dollar, which it can print at will. Now if you're talking about inflation, that's a different question.[5]" That is, the U.S. can never run out of dollars. Buffet would give the U.S. a "Quadruple-A rating.[5]"

Direct Rebuttals
1. Ron Paul's Tax Plan
My opponent in this section makes too many factual errors to address them all. One example of this is his claim that "the recovery started in 1934, in 1937 taxes were raised causing the economy to plunge back." This claim is cited to a Yahoo Answers post. In addition to raising taxes, in 1937 the WPA was cut reducing government expenditures[6]. A graph of the result is available at [7]. Note how the decrease in GDP tracks the decrease in government outlays. This shows clearly the danger of deficit cutting during economically troubled times. Since Paul wants to balance the budget and Obama does not, this is a reason Obama's policies are better than Paul's.

2: Ron Paul's government hands-off approach
That over-regulation is bad is a talking point, not an argument. I would invite my opponent to point out a regulation Paul would remove that Obama would keep and explain why this difference makes for a better economic policy.

3: Ron Paul's fiscal and monetary policy is a lot better than Obama's
As my opponent pointed out in point 1, cutting deficits during a recovery can lead to a fresh recession. Balancing the federal budget would be disastrous since there would be no ongoing fiscal stimulus to fill demand leakages within our economy. This could lead to deflation and the resulting decrease in investment. We have also seen above that my opponents fears of default are misplaced.

To compare two people's economic policies we must first know what they are. For that I reference their declared positions from their campaign web sites[8,9].

1. Obama will invest in the future while Paul would cut cut cut
Paul's nearly religious ferocity in budget cuts would be disastrous for the long term health of the economy. He would "Veto[] any unbalanced budget" and "Refus[e] to further raise the debt ceiling"[8]. Obama would invest in high tech manufacturing and domestic energy production[9]. These sorts of government investment expenditure have worked in the past. During reconstruction, the massive government give-away of the homestead act opened up Westward expansion to individual families and the resulting conversion of prairies to farms made the U.S. the agricultural powerhouse of the world. The manufacturing infrastructure built with government money in WWII was converted to build cars and tractors in the 1950s and '60s driving one of the greatest economic expansions in history. The DARPA funded internet gave rise to the modern information age driving, yet again, a substantial economic expansion.

2. Paul would adopt a gold standard while Obama would not
There are (at least) two main problems with the gold standard. First, it causes inflation and deflation to be more pronounced and oscillate quickly giving rise to economic uncertainty and great price instability. A graph is available at Wikipedia [10], but the data are included in the reliably sourced pdf attached to that page. Returning to 19th century monetary policy would be disastrous to our modern economy. Second, there simply isn't enough gold in the world. At around $9 trillion[11] there isn't enough gold to support just the U.S. economy (with a GDP of ~$15T) at current prices, much less the entire world if everyone else followed suit. Transitioning to the gold standard would require a massive inflation spike since there would not be enough gold to chase all the goods and services in the economy. It was the constraints of the gold standard that gave rise to fractional reserve banking (FRB) in the first place. I suspect my opponent is no fan of FRB. Virtually no economists think this is a good idea [12].

For these and the reasons stated above, Ron Paul's economic policies are not superior to Barack Obama's.


Debate Round No. 2


Ron-Paul forfeited this round.


That's unfortunate. I know my opponent is involved in a large number of debates right now, so it may be he just overlooked this deadline among the many. I won't add any new point this round out of fairness.

I extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


I am just going to give you the win. My fever is back up to 102.7 and I need rest. I can still win my other two debates since they are one, easier opponents and two, I haven't forfeited in them.

I am sorry for this sad debate.

I look forward to debating this topic with you in the future and also debating the topic ""A small but positive rate of inflation can be good for an economy." Wasn't there someother topic you wanted to debate with me?

Anyway, I will try to get these challenges around a few weeks from now. Can you open up your messages so I can message you something?


Next time.
Debate Round No. 4


Next time. If you have anything that you would like to debate specifically, just e-mail me.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
Lol Mimshot 2 good debaters quit on ya
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
Unless any complications arise, I should have my argument by tonight. I was diagnosed with a viral infection, but I have felt fine yesterday and today.
Posted by Mimshot 6 years ago
No worries, dude. If you can get the next one in on time, we'll call it a three round debate instead of four. If not, then I understand your health comes first. I hope you feel better.
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
Mimshot, I am sorry I forfeited. I was going to post my argument this morning, but woke up with leg pains and a fever of 102. I am just coming off of pneumonia, and now I have been diagnosed with a viral disease. I have either been too tired to formulate an argument or have been at the doctor getting tests done. I am sorry for the inconvience. Hopefully I will be well enough to post my next argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 years ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded