The Instigator
Interrobang
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MistahKurtz
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

The Democrats were in the majority so they are the cause of the economic problems.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/31/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,214 times Debate No: 7625
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

Interrobang

Con

Many Republicans like to throw around that because the Democrats were in the majority when the economic crisis started, they are the cause and not the Republicans.

I believe they are wrong.

First off: The new Democrats that were elected did not enter office until January 3rd, 2007. The subprime morgatge crisis started (in the US) during late 2006. The entire recession was caused mostly in part to that crisis, and the Democrats were not in the majority when it happened. Thus, it would be invalid to say that they were the cause when it in fact started before they held their positions.

Also, even if they had taken office before the crisis began, it would take some serious skill to suddenly cause the entire world to collapse. It is just not possible to completely spark a world economy destruction.

I would like to save any Bush policy arguments for later, if my opponent doesn't mind. It would be nice for the first round the revolve around just my above comments.
MistahKurtz

Pro

I'd like to thank my esteemed college for creating this debate.

As this debate is, as of yet, thoroughly undefined, I will take this opportunity to clarify my position and the general topic at hand.

I intend to prove that the Democratic Party of the United States, as an institution and not merely the collection of senators and representatives that constitute it today, is responsible for the current economic crises. This is not to say, however, that they are solely independent catalysts for the meltdown, but rather that they were the sleeping watchmen during Republican domination of Congress and they were the foolhardly laissez-faire decision makers when they held power. I will demonstrate that the Clinton administration laid the groundwork for the housing bubble and the ensuing Democratic members of Congress sat idle as the Republican government deregulated the economy to the point here such an unfortunate turn of events became not only likely, but inevitable.

While I intend to prove that it is the pedigree of the Democratic party to be inattentive economic stewards. It begins as far back as Franklin D. Roosevelt and his blind lavishing of American tax dollars on an economy with no sort of oversight. What's more, the New Deal created Fannie Mae; one of floundering banks in the current economic crises. Between 1969-1971, the Democratic Congress further shaped and sculpted Fannie Mae into a government entity and created Freddie Mac, the other half of the terrible twosome. At the same time, painful and wide-spread stagflation crippled the U.S economy, which led Congress and President Carter to further deregulate many aspects of the economy. The Democratic majority of the House in the 99th Congress, and a dual majority in the 100th and 101th sessions facilitated and orchestrated the Savings and Loan crises by a widespread deregulation of the economy which, in the end, cost the taxpayer almost $125 billion. A pattern emerges.

Guess who held the majority for the first four years of the 90's, as America was once again in recession?

But by far the most serious mistake the Democrats made was heralded by Bill Clinton. In his noble quest to give every Joe Schmo a home, he encouraged, aided and mandated banks to take on risky mortgages. So our housing bubble begins. By stacking the banks' books with high-risk occupants (today known as 'toxic assets') Clinton set the banks up for failure, for these occupants soon defaulted on their homes and left the banks with worthless homes that no one wants to buy.

Perhaps the current Democratic majority did nothing to orchestrate the crisis, albeit many are responsible for allowing the regulation to occur during the Clinton and Bush administrations and others are responsible for not pushing for more regulation now. The fact of the matter is that there have been many Democratic majorities in Congress and they have doomed the American economy to failure at every step of the way.

It is undeniable to say that everyone, regardless of party, is to blame here. I believe I have argued very effectively that the Democratic party, when given any sort of power in Congress has used their pulpit to deregulate the economy and these decisions have led to many recessions and crises, including this one.
Debate Round No. 1
Interrobang

Con

I apologize for not clarifying the point of this debate.

I agree with my opponent that they were (partially) the cause of previous economic crises. However, the point of the debate is for now, the current recession.
MistahKurtz

Pro

Yes, I understand. I have demonstrated precedent and causation. The Democrats have led the United States into, arguably, the three largest economic crises since the Great Depression. This establishes their track record. I further illustrated how the Democrats have been responsible for a systematic deregulation over the course of 40 years, causing the opening for the current recession. They appear to have a very short memory, as they criticized the Bush administration for failures in regulation, yet it was their party who allowed the economy to begin its destructive path long before Bush took the oath.

You have so far not demonstrated exactly how George Bush managed to deregulate the economy enough in the course of 7 years so as to allow a massive meltdown in the housing market, irrespective of the fact that the bubble was precipitated by previous administrations. You also have yet to actually clarify your stance, other than to rely on an error in a conclusion that you yourself created ("The new Democrats that were elected did not enter office until January 3rd, 2007. The subprime mortgage crisis started (in the US) during late 2006.") As I have seen no evidence, logic or actual proof on your side of the debate, would I be hasty to conclude that you in fact, have no case and instead seek to rely on your pre-determined conclusion?
Debate Round No. 2
Interrobang

Con

Interrobang forfeited this round.
MistahKurtz

Pro

My opponent's silence speaks volumes.
Debate Round No. 3
Interrobang

Con

Interrobang forfeited this round.
MistahKurtz

Pro

'Nuff said.
Debate Round No. 4
Interrobang

Con

Interrobang forfeited this round.
MistahKurtz

Pro

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
PRO pointed out everything I would have.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"The new Democrats that were elected did not enter office until January 3rd, 2007"
And shortly after, the economy started tanking.
Posted by MistahKurtz 8 years ago
MistahKurtz
No debate is to asinine for me!

Although I initially though I was con. Why would you create such a loaded a resolution that you're arguing against? Delusions of grandeur?
Posted by Brewmaster 8 years ago
Brewmaster
This debate is so asinine, it doesn't look like anyone is going to honor it with a response.
Posted by Interrobang 8 years ago
Interrobang
Is anybody actually going to accept this?
Posted by grayron 8 years ago
grayron
I am trying to figure out what there is to debate. I am not a Democrat or Republican but both got there hand in this mess.

The citizens have blame but so does the government. The government asked Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to help poor people get mortgages because of the American Dream and political correctness. Fannie Mae took the offer and encourage businesses like Wachovia to make the loans.
Posted by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
I'll take the debate if I can argue the economic problems are the fault of the citiziens (not the goverment).
Posted by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
instead of filling up the 'comments' section, why don't one of you accept the debate, if you think you are really that smart.
Posted by lordjosh 8 years ago
lordjosh
Regardless of whether it matters, Democrats were in charge. The downturn in the market started as a bubble deflation, timed perfectly for the 08 elections. The bubble was created in 07. Here is a 5 year chart of the Dow. The dow moves from 11,000 to 14,000 in a very short time.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com...

Hmm, what happened previous to 2007? One thing is for certain. The odd behavior of the market seems to be benefiting a certain extreme wing of a political party at this time.
Posted by McBain 8 years ago
McBain
"Americans are SO lazy, that they wont even do anything about anything."

That should be a debate topic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MistahKurtz 8 years ago
MistahKurtz
InterrobangMistahKurtzTied
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