The Instigator
Capt_Carter
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
A-ThiestSocialist
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Socialism can only make things worst for the U.S.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 777 times Debate No: 7165
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Capt_Carter

Pro

When newly elected Barack Obama stepped into office and the House and Senate were taken over by Democrats, they brought with them a large wave of Socialism. I believe that the U.S. being Capitalist is what makes us the most powerful and influential country in the world. If the U.S. adopts Socialism, then we most likely won't be able to call this "the land of opportunity" anymore.
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

Initially, the resolution assumes that socialism would be bad for the United States in any degree or form, thus, I only must defend portions of socialism or nationalization. Secondly, we must keep in mind that the "socialism" of today is merely social spending and government take-overs via loans in order to clear banks balance sheets. We aren't seeing any sort of worker control or any marxian terms. My opponent assumes that democrats came in bearing socialist policies, but instead actually they wanted basic change. The Obama administration is following the Swedish model of bank balance sheet clearing, which enables banks to eliminate toxic assets. This is encouraged by such "capitalists" as Paul Krugman and Alan Greenspan.
Debate Round No. 1
Capt_Carter

Pro

The governmental take-overs may just be the worst aspect of socialism. Big government and big government spending has never stabilized an economy. In the 1980's, the economy was worst than it is now, but Obama doesn't elaborate on it because he knows we got out of it using tax cuts. This is why I said earlier that big government hurts opportunity; it punishes the successful school geek who eventually owns a big business, and rewards the under-achieveing school bully that picked on him. With a low, equal tax rate for everyone, businesses can flourish, create jobs, and give people what they deserve. The government should work for us, not the other way around.
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

Let's evaluate my opponents claims first on an economic level. He claims that in the 1980's supply side economics became the savior to any crisis, which is simply false. Though in the 1980's there was an inventory and supply problem, we don't see that now. By cutting taxes on the business side, the aggregate supply curve is shifted right, and real domestic output is increased, along with a decreased price level. The problem with this in today's world is that there isn't a problem of business access to funds; businesses can easily access funds through changes in the monetary policy. Businesses choose not to do so, however, because there is no purchasing of their products. This concludes to a demand side problem. Tax cuts on the business side won't solve this. Furthermore, on the consumer side, tax cuts aren't the most effective means of spending and injection into the economy. The tax multiplier is always one less the spending multiplier, so spending is an appropriate means of stimulus. Next, he talks about incentives to improve, but no Obama policy is giving money to "useless" people of society, it's instead giving consumers and the middle class money to spend and shift the aggregate demand curve by creating jobs and public works projects. He finally says that we need an equal tax rate, which implies the progressive tax system is "socialist" (which it isn't). When evaluating the two alongside each other, a progressive tax is better for the economy, more practical, and more logical. It contains natural stabilizers against recession and inflation, as the more you make you begin to pay more, and the contrary for a diminishing wage. Through this, the progressive tax system helps to maintain balance in the American economy. Next, government take overs aren't the "worst" aspect of socialism, though they are the only kind found in Obama. An overwhelming majority of economists support the take overs, as they would be short term, and would effectively clear banks balance sheets. So, when my opponent says he wants the government to work for us, and he wants to allow businesses to flourish, clearing the banks balance sheets does just that. Banks would be able to inject credit into the market yet again, allowing businesses to invest and create jobs. Furthermore, Americans would be able to afford mortgages and funding a college education. That's a pretty clear way of working for us.
Debate Round No. 2
Capt_Carter

Pro

Capt_Carter forfeited this round.
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

A-ThiestSocialist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Capt_Carter

Pro

Capt_Carter forfeited this round.
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

A-ThiestSocialist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Capt_Carter

Pro

Capt_Carter forfeited this round.
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

A-ThiestSocialist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
Capt_CarterA-ThiestSocialistTied
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