The Instigator
Wallstreetatheist
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Contra
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Contra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,328 times Debate No: 20631
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

Wallstreetatheist

Pro

Resolution: Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies.

I think we are both intelligent enough to understand the resolution without definitions.

Rules
: Debater must have typing experience.

Debater must have internet access.
Must structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.

Don't be a douche.
Obey the "rounds" structure.
Must insert one witty quote per round.
Please no lawyering, waging source wars, dictionary assaults (semantics), or fallacies.

Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five
(2) Main Argument
(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument
(4) Response to rebuttal + voting issues (one paragraph)


"Inflation is when you pay fifteen dollars for the ten-dollar haircut you used to get for five dollars when you had hair." - Sam Ewing


I accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel.

With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner.

Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.

Let the game begin!
Contra

Con

I accept, I ask Pro to state Ron Paul's economic plan next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting.

It would be improper to analyze economic policies before analyzing the base from which those policies stem. Ron Paul’s economic policies stem from Austrian Economics whereas Barack Obama’s economic policies stem from Keynesian Economics. I’ll preface the distinction by noting that The predominate Keynesian School is responsible for the current state of the US economy; this alone is a strong argument to listen to the Austrian School.

Austrian School: Economics that stems from human behavior (Praxeology). It champions sound money, free markets, private property, and the liberal society. Sound money is the return to the gold standard instead of continuing this cycle of inflation the federal reserve creates. The free market is the efficient solution to deleterious government intervention. Private property leads to efficient, rational economic calculations. The liberal society is one that values civil liberties. Austrian School economists like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble’s collapse and the economic crisis[1,2,3], but the Austrians have predicted The Great Depression and Stagflation as well.

Keynesian School: Interventionist “economics” that stems from John Maynard Keynes’ views. It stresses spending during recessions (which keeps economic bubbles partially inflated), the insignificance of deficits (see Greece and Portugal)[4], economic stimulus (printing money), domestic foreign and corporate welfare, warfarism, and central banking[5]. Since Keynesianism is responsible for the economic failures of numerous countries globally, Peter Schiff characterized it like so, “Keynesians are to economics what witch doctors are to medicine.”

That’s because Keynesianism is not scientific, but Austrian economics is[6].

Ron Paul thinks the government’s role in the economy is this: provide sound money that holds its value, protect consumers from fraud and unsafe products/services, and provide conditions that foster genuine economic growth.

Contention 1: Ron Paul is pro-small business and pro-job creation. Dr. Paul is pro-small business and would create many jobs. Increased small business opportunities are correlated with increased employment. Ron Paul would create an environment conducive to small business growth. It is very difficult to be successful as a business owner in this country, because the government has made it so difficult through taxes, regulation, and legal threats. Ron Paul would make it simple and profitable to open a business. He would take several steps:
1. Establish sound fiscal policy by presenting budget surpluses every year. It’s much better to have savings for rainy days than to incur debts and pay off the debts with borrowed money.
2. Establish sound monetary policy. The government must allow our bubble economy to fully deflate. Asset prices, wages, and spending must fall, interest rates, production, and savings must rise. Resources, including labor, must be reallocated away from certain sectors, such as government, services, finance, health care, and educations, and be allowed to into manufacturing, mining, oil and gas, agriculture, and other goods producing fields. Remember, savings enables capital investment which drives genuine economic growth.
3. Decrease regulations. a) Abolish the minimum wage. This artificial limit encourages employers to look to minimize hires and to automate wherever possible, because it is illegal to hire below that wage. It also decreases the total amount of wealth creation. Singapore has no minimum wage, yet it has higher wages due to its freer economy. b) Abolish extended unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits over time become more of a disincentive to employment than anything else, discouraging productive economic growth as it is only until the benefits run out that the person looks for work. This also increases economic deadweight loss as money is being diverted to these people with no productive output. c) Repeal all laws mandating employment terms such as work place conditions, over-time, benefits, leave, medical benefits, etc. Rules imposed from the top create inefficiencies that limit employment opportunities. Thus, decreasing a small businesses ability to expand. d) Repeal all Federal workplace anti-discrimination Laws. The fear of litigation, and the costly judgments that can ensue, are real. Given that it is nearly impossible for an employer to control all the aspects of the workplace environment, litigation risk is a tangible consideration that decreases a small business’ profitably hence its ability to remain entrenched.
4. A simplified tax code and the reduction of the corporate tax. To create conditions that foster growth, the government should severely reform and simplify the tax code. Income tax will be reduced to 0%, these taxes will be unnecessary when Ron Paul cuts the wasteful spending in Washington. He will reduce the corporate tax to 25% from 39%. Our current tax system discourages the activities that we need most: hard work, production, savings, investment, and risk taking, all of which aid the growth of small business and employment. We should tax people when they spend their wealth, not when they create it.

Contention 2: Ron Paul has a sane fiscal policy. Instead of Obama doubling the national debt, Ron Paul would reduce the debt, reduce spending, and return us to solvency. He would present a balanced budget (including surplus) each year, cut federal spending by $1 trillion the first year, veto any unbalanced budget, and refuse to raise the debt ceiling to curtail reckless spending and government waste. There is nothing dangerous about returning to solvency or spending money wisely. However, there is incredible danger when Obama will continue to spend $2t over the limit each year and continue to raise the debt ceiling until the facade of the Ponzi-bond-scheme that is our fiscal policy is revealed, and we suffer immense consequences.


Contention 3: Ron Paul has a sane monetary policy. Instead of Obama’s socialist Jobs plans, quantitative easing, and “stimulus,” Paul supports a monetary policy that would benefit everyone (except for corporations seeking a government-aided edge over competitors and those in government who profit from the corruption enabled by that system). He will conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implement competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation. When you hear the word "stimulus" you can basically substitute the word "inflation," because that's all a country will get from implementing it. The government is incapable of stimulating genuine economic growth, it has no real resources, and all it can do is interfere with the free market's ability to create genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth. Ron Paul will fight to fully audit, then end the federal reserve that is the cause of most economic problems in the United States, as central banks are the cause of most economic problems in the world.



Conclusion:
Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget. [6]
Barack Obama has tripled the national debt, increased regulations, and made it more difficult to start a business in the United States while contributing to inflation/dollar devaluation. [7]


[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[2] http://paulitifact.com...
[3] http://www.mymoneycalculator.com.au...
[4] http://truthandliberty.com...
[5] http://www.tommullen.net...
[6] http://www.ronpaul2012.com...
[7] http://blog.heritage.org...
Contra

Con

I disagree with your definitions of Keynesian and Austrian economics, the ones you put are strict definitions. I will put my simpler definitions down:

Austrian School Economics: Economic theory that is strongly opposed to government intervention in business affairs. Against all government intervention besides the core libertarian beliefs of property rights, free markets, national defense, and law enforcement. [1]

Keynesian Economics
:
Economic theory that believes it is the government's job to smooth out the bumps in business cycles. Intervention would come in the form of government spending and tax breaks in order to stimulate the economy, and government spending cuts and tax hikes in good times, in order to curb inflation. [2]


Plus, although Keynesian Economics may support warfare (warfarism is not a real word) and support corporate welfare, modern Keynesian supporters DO NOT support these policies, since their politics are progressive.


Contention 1: Obama is pro-small business and job creation as well
Obama has ordered a federal review of all government regulations. [3] This is to help small businesses grow with less a burden. Plus, Obama has passed tax cuts for small businesses to help spur job creation in this area, in fact 17 times. Obama has also passed as we know the Affordable Care Act, and helps small businesses give their employers health insurance with no change in costs since before the Act. The Act also gives small businesses tax credits for purchasing health insurance for their employers. [4] [5]

Contention 2: Obama saved the Auto Industry, unlike Ron Paul's plan (wouldn't of)
Obama supported the unpopular auto bailouts, which saved over 1.4 MILLION jobs. Doing nothing would've costed about 3 million jobs. [6] It also saved $97 billion in personal income in 2009 and 2010. Now, they have are creating many new jobs, an economic depression was averted, and the companies have paid back most of their debts, and are also becoming much more competitive, as well as for the first time in years, all companies that received the bailout -- are posting profits. [5] [6] None of this would've happened under a Ron Paul administration.

Contention 3: Economic Stimulus was needed to avert a depression
The stimulus saved about 224,000 jobs in 2010 alone, and increased GDP by 1.7-4.5%, increased total employment by about 1.4-3.3 million jobs, and compared to doing NOTHING increased employment by 2-4.8 million jobs. Also lowered unemployment rate by 0.7-3.8 percentage points, and gave 95% of working families tax cuts. [7] [5] Without the stimulus, history would again show us that the recession would last longer, and the Great Recession would of became a depression. [8] Job growth also began and a recovery was able to appear, although slowly, but you cannot expect much after an economy about reached a depression status. [8]

Contention 4: Wall Street Reform was a good idea
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act makes Wall Street now serve not just short term growth, but long term investments in growth, and gives Wall Street more accountability and regulates it in a way that is better for the economy. It ends Wall Street bailouts, "too big to fail" firms, and separates proprietary trading from the business of banking, making Wall Street accountable. Also set up a Consumer Protection Agency to protect consumers from illegal business practices, including Predatory lending. [9] In all, new rules were made to restore accountability and responsibility in corporate offices.

Contention 5: Put the USA back on recovery
The USA missed landing in a depression, but many tax incentives and credits helped the renewable energy in the USA to skyrocket. The USA went from producing 2% of lithium car batteries to 40%. [10] Also, renewable energy now provides 14% of total energy used (campaign promise was 10%). [11] Plus, because of green energy investments, 250,000 - 850,000 green jobs were created since Obama took office until the end of his first term. Renewable energy sources from the USA puts money back into the USA, being a common-sense economic benefit. [12] Plus, job growth, although is still not fully robust, is certain and is much better than it was during the last months of the Bush Administration. New jobs per month is now around 200,000, compared to negative 700,000 a month when Obama started his term. [13] Plus, the patent system has been reformed, and tourism is easier now in the USA, leading to massive potential for "mini-tourist" stimulus packages for the economy. [14]

Contention 6: American Jobs Act is a great economic idea
Obama's proposed Jobs Act would, according to some economists, "put a significant dent in unemployment" [15]. This Act gives 98% of small businesses tax cuts, tax holidays for new jobs, and cuts regulations for small businesses. The act modernizes about 35,000 schools, prevents up to 280,000+ teacher, firefighter, and police officer layoffs, strongly works on modernizing America's infrastructure, puts heavy investments in promoting businesses that re-hire long term unemployed workers, lets more American families refinance their mortgages, allowing more than $2000 for each family through savings, improves job training for low income youths and adults, and is FULLY PAID FOR. [16] It would also increase GDP growth per quarter by an estimated full percentage point.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe

Sources:

[1] http://www.investopedia.com...

[2] http://www.investopedia.com...

[3] http://www.cbsnews.com...

[4] http://www.urban.org...

[5] http://www.barackobama.com...

[6] http://autos.aol.com...

[7] http://cboblog.cbo.gov...

[8] http://www.nytimes.com...

[9] http://www.whitehouse.gov...

[10] "Back to Work" by Bill Clinton. Nov. 2011

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[12] http://www.politifact.com...

[13] http://www.facebook.com...

[14] http://abcnews.go.com...

[15] http://www.npr.org...

[16] http://www.whitehouse.gov...

[17] http://thinkprogress.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

I thank my opponent for his argument which I will now methodically deconstruct and comprehensively refute. Ford may help dissipate any confusion the judges may have experienced reading Con's argument:

"It is well enough that people of the nation don’t understand the monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Henry Ford

Austrian School: My opponent's definition is valid. He reiterates the sound policies of Austrian Economics which Ron Paul holds. He cites "property rights, free markets, national defense, and law enforcement" as the core issues. Yes, this is the proper role of government. The reason why Austrians are "strongly opposed to government intervention in business affairs" is because the government stifles economic growth, causes bubbles and speculation from central bank monetary policy, and causes deadweight loss through unnecessary government bureaucracies and programs. [1]

Keynesian School: Keynesian economics CAUSES the business cycle. By artificially raising or lowering the interest rates (which should be set by the market) the Federal Reserve plays a huge role in generating booms and busts. Also, price controls in the area of wages makes employment below the minimum wage illegal; thus, fostering unemployment and the deadweight loss of unemployment benefits that follows while decreasing the total amount of goods and wealth for all. Keynesian monetary policy make relatively steady economic growth littered with periods of artifically booms and disasterous market corrections that are further delayed by economic "stimulus" until the economy and national debt gets increasingly worse.[3]


Warfarism: a federal government desire to consistently go to war and prepare for war. The word was popularized by Libertarian economist Ludwig Von Mises, anti-war movements, and Ron Paul in his book Liberty Defined, but you can substitute "militarism," if you like. The Keynesian idea behind it is that spending on war generate genuine economic growth, which of course it doesn't. Under Barack Obama the military currently spends an exorbitant amount of money maintaining unnecessary forces tat weaken our national defense. What weakens our defense even more is the fact that this spending is bankrupting the country.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com...


RC1: The US currently has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. The threats that I mentioned still exist. The disincentives to small business growth and entrenchment still exist. My opponent mentioned Obama's Affordable Care Act. This Act will do to medicine what socialism has done to medicine in other countries: lower quality, lower efficiency, increase costs, and increase waiting times. The only type of surgery that decreased in cost in the past decade was plastic surgery, because of the lack of government intervention. A $20,000 heart surgery in the United States costs near $10,000 in Singapore, because Singapore has more economic freedom. So what Obama and Congress are doing is taking a bad system and making it unimaginably worse. Obama hasn't made the US more conducive to small business growth; he has however, increased the power of big business. [4] [5]


RC2: "Obama saved the Auto Industry." I'm confident that most of the people reading this debate can take this laughable claim for what it is: a joke. The status quo of Washington economic policy is to make an environment increasingly hostile to business, shoot up the economy with cheap money that fuels speculation, then when there are dire consequences to these irresponsible actions, they bail out specific companies; thus, creating a moral hazard, discouraging small business, subsidizing big business, and making the average American pay for it through direct taxation or indirect taxation i.e. printing money that devalues the currency while the debt continues to accumulate. This is a "success" for Washington Keynesians. The role of government is not to pick winners or losers, but to allow the free market to decide which goods to produce. If a company cannot figure out how to survive, you should allow it to die so that another that can do the job better can replace it. You don't reward terrible managing through bailout's with other people's money. That's the heighth of irresponsibility. [10]


RC3: "Stimulus" This is a very persistent economic fallacy. The thought that cheap money sent to commercial and investment banks at practically a zero rate of interest stimulating economic growth is absurd. When you hear the word "stimulus" you can basically substitute the word "inflation," because that's all a country will get from implementing it. The government is incapable of stimulating genuine economic growth, they have no real resources, and all they can do is interfere with the free market's ability to create genuine economic growth and legitimate wealth.


RC4: Barack Obama supported the Wall Street Bailouts. The CPA is another government bureaucracy which has the goal of monitoring activity caused by another government bureaucracy. This is the epitome of inefficiency. The bill doesn't get to the root cause of the financial crisis: reckless monetary policy from the federal reserve. The law does not end "Too big to fail." The firms that benefitted from the bailouts will be ensured continued industry dominance with the help of government. Note here that there has never been a monopoly in the United States without government intervention. More regulations in the financial sector means higher costs for smaller financial services firms; thus, decreasing competition, and allowing the dominance of a select few financial services firms in the industry. Ron Paul objected to the bailouts every step of the way. [6] [10]


RC5: Obama did not put the US back on a recovery any more than the socialist policies of Bush put the US on a recovery after the recession in his first term. Washington doesn't understand that the stimulus is the problem. It just delays the recession (in the case of Bush until 2008-2010) until a later date in which the severity is increased, because of the unhealthy economic woes produced by reckless monetary policy. Despite how severe this recession was, the next will be far worse unless we let the free market correct itself and do away with a nation-destroying federal reserve that is bankrupting not only our country, but central banking has destroyed countries throughout history throughout the world [see Greece and Portugal]. Ron Paul writes extensively on the topic with great profundity in his book End the Fed. The federal reserve system inflates the money supply, decreasing its value and stimulating economic destruction. [7] [8]


RC6: The American Jobs Act is an example of what is known as the most persistent economic fallacy of all time. This fallacy is that if the government pays people to work or do nothing, they'll spend that money, hence growth. That is false; the people aren't productively employed, because taxpayers are financing it. The incentive is to work less while being employed. It is not efficient use of resources; thus, there is deadweight loss, and taxpayer funding for it is irresponsible. Obama would have raised the debt past his triple if it was passed. [9]




[1] www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AustrianSchoolofEconomics.html

[2] www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MonetaryPolicy.html

[3] www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BusinessCycles.html

[4] www.cnbc.com/id/30727913/The_World_s_Highest_Corporate_Tax_Rates_2010?slide=10

[5] www.lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff64.1.html

[6] finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/peter-schiff's-3-reasons-why-financial-reform-will-fail-523726.html?tickers=xlf,faz,fnm,FRE,JPM,BAC,c

[7] hmscoop.com/

[8] www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/11/11/the_fallacy_of_persistent_credit_creation_99362.html

[9] blog.heritage.org/2009/08/28/obama’s-tripling-of-the-national-debt-in-pictures/
[10] www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L15

Contra

Con


"War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left."

Keynesian Economics

Economic theory that believes it is the government's job to smooth out the bumps in business cycles. Intervention would come in the form of government spending and tax breaks in order to stimulate the economy, and government spending cuts and tax hikes in good times, in order to curb inflation. YOUR definition isn't even the real definition of Keynesian Economics, it is just a quote from your source (which I looked at) and showed some effects of Keynesian economics on the negative side. You framed this definition, while mine is of neutral definition.

C1: Why Gov't is needed in Economy

YOU SAID: Keynesian Economics causes the economic bubbles and cycles we face. However, this is not entirely true. Government may contribute to economic cycles, but Gov't intervention in the economy also is needed to smoothen out the bumps, and Gov't ultimately helps the economy in different ways. USING YOUR SOURCE your source includes the FACT that the recessions of the pre–World War I era were relatively frequent and quite variable in size. This is consistent with the fact that before World War I, the government had little influence on the economy. Prewar recessions stemmed from a wide range of private-sector-induced fluctuations in spending, such as invesment busts and financial panics, that were left to run their course. As a result, recessions occurred frequently, and some were large and some were small. [1] [2]

Plus, now since the government intervenes in the economy with a social welfare net, and necessary regulation, shows that recessions no longer wreak the havoc on individuals’ standards of living that they once did. YOU used this source, and I just did too. My usage was valid, yours was illegitamely framed.

C2: Militarism is Keynesian - But Not Obama-Policy

Obama has ended the War in Iraq. This view of Obama's differs from Keynesian theory then.

C3: Tax Rates on corporations - You may be surprised

Obama supports reducing corporate taxes on businesses and small businesses that create jobs in the U.S.A. This is true, the main disagreement with tax rates on corporations/ business is what the target rate should be and dealing with loopholes (which Obama opposes). [4]

C4: Health Care

Obama is moving us to a Universal Health Care system. Your source shows the opinion of a writer who is talking about a DIFFERENT VERSION of the health care bill. Plus, THIS IS NOT SOCIALISM. I will say though it is closer to Socialism, but IT IS NOT SOCIALISM! Compare it to a person. The guy eats meat and vegetables and everything that the doctor recommends. However, he adjusts his diet to eat 3 fruits a day as well as his beef sandwich and such. This doesn't make him a vegetarian, but does make him closer. Note the difference.

Your argument of "increased costs" is fully unsupported. The Obama bill lowers costs, and this is proven. It lowers the deficit $132 billion over 10 years. [5] Plus, nations with universal health care have BETTER health care and lower costs than the USA. Singapore, like you mentioned, has Universal Health Care. The USA is already last or next-to-last in quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability of its citizens to lead long, healthy, productive lives. We pay 13.4% in GDP on healthcare, but than get THESE CRAPPY RESULTS? "ObamaCare" has been found to go a long way to improving the current system. [6] The USA has lower life expectancies and higher infant mortality rates, and other worse health care quality aspects than Universal Health Care nations (excuse me, we don't yet have U.H.Care).

C5: Obama saves Auto-Industry

The Big 3 automakers have a HUGE economic stake in our nation. If they were allowed to bankrupt and then die away, over $97 billion in personal income would of been erased in 2009 and 2010. Michigan, where I live, would of been devastated. Plus, the Big 3 have a tough time competing due to HIGHER HEALTH CARE COSTS compared to UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE nations. Now, the Big 3 are on a stable footing, and if we let them go, the USA would be back in a depression.

C6: Stimulus Package on U.S. Economy

Plus, the jobs created in the USA have slowly but surely grown back since the Stimulus, the reason that the stimulus didn't fully bounce the economy back to its haven is because a $800 billion dollar program cannot fill a $3 Trillion dollar gap. [7]

C7: Wall Street matters

Obama regulated Wall Street to make sure the Great Recession will not happen again. The subprime mortgage deregulation scheme allowed un-worthy (and likely gullible) homeowners to get homes that they couldn't afford. The Fed didn't create the crisis, although its inflation rates did play a role to a small amount. If subprime mortgages were regulated, as well as derivatives trading, the main core causes of the Great Recession which led to a bubble explosion, if they were regulated, a future similar recession wouldn't occur. Truth is DEREGULATION caused the GREAT RECESSION. [8] [9] Ron Paul wants us to go back to the ideas THAT CREATED THE CRISIS IN THE FIRST PLACE! That is why History is helpful ---- to prevent us from making the same mistakes again! Paul's ideas are therefore counter-intuitive.

Plus, the Consumer Protection Agency protects consumers from unsafe goods that businesses sell. Ron Paul opposes this. Remember that about 106 years ago and before, businesses and the free market was believed that they would regulate themselves. Look at what happened. You get food that contains poisions, rats, and feces from rodents. This CANNOT be allowed to happen again. [10]

C8: Free market "solutions"

Refere to C1.

In response to the Jobs Act, it pays citizens to re-modernize the infrastructure of this nation, and also puts a big dent in unemployment and improves GDP. Many citizens are not "lazy" as you imply, they appreciate having a job because having a job is a core belief in self-responsibility and the knowledge that people can support themselves. Many people want work, let's help them in a good way.

C9: Ron Paul Conclusion

Plus, the Fed is necessary to controlling inflation in the nation and reducing the impact of recessions and depressions. No regulation besides libertarian regulation doesn't work. Monopolies occur after a while, products become dangerous to consumers in some methods, and the environment is desecrated. Citizens work in conditions that are dangerous with few to no protections. No workers compensation is allowed either. Economy of the USA swings frequently and by huge amounts. The "free market" only works in well reguated scenarios when the gov't works with the private sector for both the private and public benefit. At the scale Ron Paul's talking about, it’s unlikely you could have an immediate reduction in government without hurtling the economy into recession. [11] Another comment "That much deficit reduction in one year is going to be a huge drag on the economy." This is from a private source (Moody's).

Sources:



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.econlib.org...

[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...

[4] President Obama State of the Union Address, 2012

[5] http://www.politifact.com...

[6] http://www.businessweek.com...

[7] http://www.huppi.com...

[8] Yale M. Braunstein, "The Role of Information Failures in the Financial Meltdown", School of Information, UC Berkeley, Summer 2009

[9] "What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't" By Jessamyn Conrad

--A Nonpartisan Guide to the Issues

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[11] http://www.washingtonpost.com...



Debate Round No. 3
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

Wallstreetatheist forfeited this round.
Contra

Con

Well, my opponent couldn't get a true rebuttal to his argument, so I will just make a closing statement.

It has been proved that with no government intervention in the economy, recessions are frequent and are much more volatile. It is like having the Great Recession every 3-5 years. This is not an exaggeration, look at my sources from last round. Plus, Ron Paul want us to get back to the times when corporations were unfair to their workers, and when products were dangerous to consumers. This is bad policy. We should of learned from the recent recession. Plus Obama's policies have evidence that they will improve this economy, and is pro-small business, and for tax cuts for corporations that invest in American jobs with their funds. I included a picture of job growth since Bush left and Obama became president. Plus, Ron Paul's sharp cuts to spending would throw us back into a recession, and I proved this last round. Instead of a "free market" that benefits the few, Obama is wanting to get into a market that promotes broad prosperity.

"The real trouble with reality is that there's no background music."


Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
I thought I voted for you. FIXED.
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
@ wallstreet -- I think it's hilarious that you "counter" vote bombed this debate of mine in which innumerable people v-bombed against me. It makes your vote absolutely useless. Thanks for not reading and providing a useless and unwarranted vote. Maybe I'll be sure to do the same sometime in the near future on your debates.
Posted by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
I honestly didn't see it then. For one of rounds I submitted about 3 minutes before the timer expired.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
89days 05hours 29minutes 14seconds is the current time; I posted those 18 hours ago, leaving approximately 1.5 hour delay between when I posted those and when you posted yours.

However, I should adopt a policy of never submitting a round's argument with less than one minute remaining.
Posted by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
I posted my last round before you typed all these things in the comments section. Plus, my defense of Obama also included my attack on Ron Paul's policies.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Can you ask them to read this in the comments section due to technical difficulties?
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
I'd like to bring the judges' attention to the structure of the rounds:

Rounds:
(1) Acceptance + Internet High Five
(2) Main Argument
(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument
(4) Response to rebuttal + voting issues (one paragraph)

My opponent failed to deliver his third round correctly. Instead of using it as a rebuttal to my main argument, he used it as a response to my rebuttal. Since he hasn't attacked my contentions yet, I have nothing to uphold. I set up the debate this way so both sides could clearly establish an argument (round 2), clearly attack the opponent's argument (round 3), and clearly defend our argument (round 4). I have nothing to defend now. I guess I'll strengthen my rebuttal.

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." -Albert Einstein
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
RC1: The panics of pre-WW1 United States were largely caused by government policy or lack of constitutionality in acceptable bank practices.
Panic of 1837: Banks were issuing paper money that weren't backed by bullion. These were called "wild cat" banks. The Constitution states that the Treasury issues paper money, not banks. If this had been followed, the speculation (that ensued after the absurd issuing of money by private banks) wouldn't have happened.
Panic of 1873: Government land grants and subsidies to the railroads (government funded monopolies) caused an artificial boom in that industrial inevitably leading to a bust.

The same is true today with the federal reserve. It issues money, bonds, and loans in massive quantities that funds speculation [see 1920's, stagflation, dot-com bubble, housing bubble, financial crisis, and the soon to come crisis because of the fed's policy under Barack Obama]. We can see industries responding similarly to the railroads in alternative fuels [see Solyndra].

RC2:
- Lied about ending the Iraq war, waited until the very end of 2011 in order to do so and even then only after he tried to negotiate to stay longer (we were essentially kicked out)
- Significantly escalated the troops in Afghanistan
- Started his own war in Libya, justifying it on the same exact reasoning that Bush used for his wars
- Escalated drone bombings in Yemen and Pakistan
- Lied about changing the drug laws in any way at all, continued the War On Drugs exactly like the Bush administration (the administration is still cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries in California).
- Didn't close Guantanamo Bay, something he promised he would do back in '07/'08
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
RC3: What was he waiting for? He could have lowered the corporate tax rate within the past three years. He has 10 months until he's a lame duck president, and that is when the lowest approval rating usually is. We still have the world's highest corporate tax.

RC4: The Singapore model has a much more private approach, in that people pay into it. The governmet spends very little on health care in the country, yet they have better health care, longer life expectancy, and budget surpluses.

RC5: GM is in debt right now. Government "saving" specific businesses in an industry only means less competition and increased moral hazard.

RC6: The comparison is that of a drug addict (our economy). When we shoot it up with stimulus, in the short term, we feel pretty good. However, there are problems with drug use. When the high wears off, we will be in worse shape. Bush did a stimulus after the dot-com bubble, and that resulted in more government spending, especially in the housing market which led to the housing bubble burst and the financial crisis. Federal reserve spending causes speculation.

RC7: Look at the root causes of speculation: cheap money and low interest rates. Both are brought on from Obama's acceptance of the federal reserve's monetary policy.

RC8: Look at the example of the railroads that put people to work. It results in inefficiencies and deadweight loss.

RC9: Ron Paul would protect consumers by ending the federal reserve which inflates the money supply and causes inflation that hurts average Americans. It benifits big business and banks.

Thanks.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
WallstreetatheistContraTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: coutnering Islam since con clearly had sources and conduct.... Argument wise the pro seemed more inclined to sh*t all over Obama's actions then advocate why Ron Paul's were any better which made him fail to meet his BOP in this debate
Vote Placed by Islam_Forever 4 years ago
Islam_Forever
WallstreetatheistContraTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't follow the format of the rounds. Con used the most common economic fallacies to make a weak case. Con self-refuted many of his own arguments (e.g. Obama is pro small business, yet he mentions Affordable care act and wall street reform which will cartelize those industries lol Pro had a good case, although parts could have had more explanation. He could have focused more on the two presidents' specific polices rather than reducing the debate into a Keynesian vs. Austrian debate.
Vote Placed by Yarely 4 years ago
Yarely
WallstreetatheistContraTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and Con proved that Ron Paul would definitely not make a better president in economic policies and that Ron Paul's sharp cuts to spending would throw America back into a recession
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
WallstreetatheistContraTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF