Was Bernie Sander's policies reasonable?
Debate Round Forfeited
CapainAfrica99 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||3 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||205 times||Debate No:||94007|
Debate Rounds (5)
In the political sphere Bernie Sanders had now dropped from the presidential race. But in all honestly wound Bernie Sanfers even make a good president? A lot of his policies which at an outside few may seem good, but they were nowhere near reasonable. I want to see if anyone can prove me wrong and show that Bernie Sander's policies as president would have benefited this nation as a whole.
This will be a 5 round debate
Round 1. Acceptance
Round 2. Arguement
Round 3. Arguement/Counter-Arguement
Round 4. Counter-Arguement
Round 5. Conclusion (No extra info can be added in round 5.) This round is just to rehash you main point and to end the debate.
And whoever accepts this debate and i ask you please keep this a respectful debate. Thank you.
Okay and I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and wish him or her Good luck throughout this debate
As we are both American and the our Presidential election is coming up soon the debate on politics is a high one right now. And I believe that Bernie Sander's policies as ideals are amazing and if they could be implemented then yes it would help the Nation and it's people, but all of his ideals as an whole are just unreasonable to say the least.
First off lets look at he background of the nation. Practically since this nation was officially founded in 1776, we have always been more of a capitalist nation, with a mixed economy. Many (Not all) Americans believe in a laissez-faire type government where they stayed out of economic business to a degree (meaning when needed they can get involved). Plus since the 1800s America has been in debt(http://www.scpr.org...) and today we are now over 19.3 trillion dollars in debt. (http://www.usdebtclock.org...). Plus since the beginning of the United States we have had our Constitution and Bill of Rights give the federal government certain expressed and implied right which they can implement and there are some things they cannot do. We believe in a system of checks and balances saying that each branch of government has so much power and can only do (X) amount of thing
Okay now that we have looked at the background information, lets get into the fact.
1. Bernie Sanders' policy on Public Education: Bernie Sanders' believes in making public colleges and universities tuition free, lowering student interest loan, have colleges and universities higher more faculty, and to make early childhood education cheaper (http://feelthebern.org...). While I believe this would of course help the nation's citizens immensely because it allows people to afford an education much easier but my first point on this subject is where would the money come from? If we are going to force colleges to allow students in for free, lower the student loan debts, and also force them to higher more faculty, the schools will be losing a lot of money. Do we expect the colleges to just make do with the money they have but to implement this policies anyways? We can't just expect the government to fund the schools because remember we are a national debt and if this policy goes into effect will have to raise it by paying taxes. Also the federal government although has some jurisdiction on schools and education, to this degree they do not. As stated in the Constitution, in the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." and the power of education is not written in the Constitution, meaning that these powers go to the states. And if we decided that taking these powers away from the state and giving it to the federal government than we are just giving him more and more power, which could lead to the president having more power than was originally attended.
2. Bernie Sanders' policy on Health Care: Bernie Sanders' believes that we should have a universal health coverage where we have free or at least reduced health care system. (http://feelthebern.org...). While again I believe this would tremendously help out the nation, keeping it's citizens safe and healthy, where does he think the money for this will come from? To Lower or eliminate the care of health care would be taking money away from the Health care facilities and it's faculties. And again if we wanted to still pay them the same amount for their job, imagine the amount of taxation that would have to be done to implement this policy.
3. Bernie Sanders' policy on Minimum Wage: As a 17 year old student working a minimum wage job as a cashier, I believe that making 10 dollars an hour is perfectly fine it being my first job. But Under Bernie Sander's policies he believes that the minimum wage should be increased to 15 dollars an hour and because a living. (https://berniesanders.com...) Now let me get this right, I should make 15 dollars an hour and be able to live off this just for being a cashier at Taco Bell? This is highly unreasonable. One reason this is unreasonable is because if I can support myself working as a cashier or in a grocery store, then why would I want to get a bigger job that would more impact the society (Not saying the little jobs don't). Also raising the minimum wage to this degree unless you are a big business you may not be able to afford to pay all your workers 15 dollars an hour as a result you either have to fire people or you go out of business. According to different sources, small business have stated minimum wage would hurt their business An example of one is, http://www.cnbc.com.... Out of 1099 business 46% state that raising minimum wage would hurt their business while only 26% say there would be positive repercussions (Doesn't show the other 28% and where they stand). Plus doing this can lead to a huge price/wage spiral (which in macroeconomic theory is the relationship of when you raise wages it allows for more disposable income which raises the demand for goods which causes the prices to increase which causes demand for higher wages, and it continues on and on, creating a perpetual loop.) [http://www.investopedia.com...]. Also in regards if we decide to raise minimum raise don't you think people who make professional wages (i.e. doctors, lawyers, teachers, judges, etc...) would all want in increase in wage also for the fact they could be believe that if someone doing an "easier" job then them is making more money then they deserve to make more money? (This point can't be proved, this one is just an assumption).
4. Bernie Sanders' policy on immigration: Bernie Sanders' policy on immigration is one that is to say the least not normal. I say this because he believes that instead of deporting any illegal immigrants (Asian, Mexican, European, Middle-Eastern, etc...), he believes to easily just give them easy citizenship (still having to be naturalized, I believe) [ https://berniesanders.com... ]. While this one I'm controversial about because I believe that yes, it helps families stay together, but at the same time what about all the immigrants who struggled to get here had to go through long process to become accepted into the US then to become citizens and now these others get an easy ticket in. Plus it's not even the plan as a whole I am concerned about, it is how he say he will implement it. He said to make sure this happen he wants to declare an executive order so that it will not have to go through Congress. Let me restate that. He wants to use the executive order so Congress won't have any say on illegal immigration. (http://www.chicagoreader.com...). Now although Executive orders have been used through the history of the US and even used by Barack Obama toward immigration, Bernie wants to use it to a greater degree. Remember in the background, I brought up checks and balances this is why Bernie is trying to get around the use of this, giving himself more power.
5. Bernie Sanders' policy on economy and Jobs: While yes, I believe we need to help this economy and help more people get jobs to lessen the unemployed, but Bernie Sanders' proposed to invest 1 trillion of dollars to do this and then an extra 5.5 billion to provide job-training. (https://www.google.com...). While I think this is well-needed, you have to remember we are over 19 trillion dollars in debt so invest 1.5+ trillion dollars isn't that a little to much?
6. Bernie Sander's policy on taxes: Bernie Sander's believes that the easy way is fund a lot of his programs is to tax the 1% (billionaires) somewhere between 50 - 90 percent (http://www.ontheissues.org...) and in all honestly I believe that this is ludicrous. My reasoning behind this is because, the US being a capitalist nation, some people aspire to make money and become rich and make ideas and things which help them achieve that goal, and now we should punish them for this? Wouldn't this take the initiative away from some new entrepreneur, go ahead and make your new invention and become rich, we will just take a lot of your money away from you. I understand that amount of money can lead to corruption and unfair distribution of wealth, but for people who start off with nothing and made a name for themselves and made the money, shouldn't what they do with their money be mainly their business?
These are my main arguments in my debate while there are some policies that I agree on with Bernie Sanders' like Gay Marriage, National Security, and Civil Liberties, I believe that a lot of his policies are goods as ideals but are highly unreasonable and could not work in this nation as a whole. Like I said before most of his policy call for free this or free that, but looking how big of a debt we are as a nation would the funding even come from? Plus they give him more power than the US Constitution and other American Documents call for.
These are my arguments for why I believe that Bernie's policies are unreasonable and I look forward to hear from my opponent.
I thank my opponent for starting this debate, and for his organized argument.
My opponent starts off with a background on American history of economics. This background is not exactly relevant to the conversation of Bernie's topics, as Bernie is a Quasi-Socialist (Modern Democratic Socialist) which is the more political term of an individual who prefers a moderated mixed economy . The United States is a mixed economy , Bernie simply believes in more industry moderation and regulation. That doesn't make the United States a full socialist nation, no nation was ever laissez-faire, since the introduction of national economics .
Bernie Sanders' Policy on Public Education
The only direct argument my opponent has towards this policy is finances. If I had a nickel for every conservative that asked "Oh, where's the money going to come from?", I could eliminate all college debt. When my opponent asks where this fiscal demand would be met, it even says it on the source he lists. The United States will institute a progressive tax system that already creates a profit margin where the debt would leave deficit mode. This abundance of the targeted 1% taxation impacts 42% of American national income considering the massive wealth gap there is . I can assume my opponent will rebut my argument by stating that a progressive tax system is an economic deterrent which is a fallacious claim. There is no absolute evidence dictating the correlation of a progressive tax system towards economic deterrence . If my opponent still questions the belief that fundamental economics can't apply to this policy, I will state an international example of how the progressive taxation system has benefited other nations to establish their own state sponsored college paying system. Scandinavia, a group of nations that are currently within such a range of income, they are in a stage of profit, have all been doing so successful, that even international students (who still pay) would have a cheaper option in Oslo, for example, than in the United States . As I stated before, Scandinavia uses a series of specific targeting taxation systems that voids as much stimulus deterrence as possible in order to rake the most amount of income, without leaving damage to the market, which they have accomplished . The next argument of my opponent is that the United States doesn't have the power to meddle in the financial system of Universities which is completely unfounded. My opponent makes his own interpretation of the constitution simply because it does not directly state tertiary education when currently, the United States does have the power to financially intervene in American college debt and payments, just look at the .gov, Federal Student Aid site . This rebuttal against American power of fiscal intervention and progressive tax reforms completely nulls that argument.
Bernie Sanders' Policy on Health Care
Before I start with this argument, I'll provide a graph below to show how fundamental a national healthcare system across the globe is.
All developed nations on Earth except for the US has a system in place, thanks to their own functional progressive tax system . If my opponent still isn't convinced about the effectiveness of a progressive taxation system, I'll offer more forms of income sources, such as multinational corporations and financial penalties targeting corruption and taxation dodging, well known to be done in economic capitals of the US, such as wall street . Now, healthcare is very costly, predicted to be ranging more than $500+ Billion, but luckily, the United States is in such an abundance of GDP per Capita, if a new tax was introduced into the United States affecting the middle class, only by 3-5%, it would already cover the expenses . Aside from the progressive tax alone being able to cover education, the new middle class tax would help them pay for their own. Bernie Sanders also had plans to plug many loopholes in finance dodging, especially for corporations, not just individuals. These legal taxation dodges, if plugged, would help the US save over $70 billion . As for eliminating jobs and facilities, I don't know what my opponent is referring to. They wouldn't be fired.
Bernie Sanders' Policy on Minimum Wage
My opponent, in this argument, is so libertarian, I can't blame him that he forgets the effectiveness of regulations. Summed up, the argument he makes is simply that there would be a loop between the rising of minimum wage and cost, i.e, inflation. Simple economic regulations can stop a percentage overload of supply and demand costs, when the minimum wage is raised. If you introduce more regulation, then the minimum wage wouldn't impact the economy as strong. My opponent is only assuming the negative repercussions of introducing a stronger minimum wage policy. The USFG is already conducting yearly rising tests in New York and California in order to mark what exactly influences the inflation between wage and cost . My opponent states his business example of the 46% claiming negative repercussions, but again, is only an assumption. They can only hypothesize what will happen, the same as my opponent can't give a solidified foundation to his argument other than giving me the definition of what macroeconomics is, and I can't factually state that there will be positive effects. This argument bubbles down into perspective.
Bernie Sanders' Policy on Immigration
My opponent doesn't offer any actual consequences to his other than how "unfair" it is that prior legal immigrants went through a tougher process than the illegal immigrants having easier passage. The entire immigration system of the United States is going to be reformed, this is just a stepping stone for the future immigrants, entering legally as well . The rest of this argument that my opponent concludes with is that Sanders is attempting to give himself more power. This statement is purely assertion and he offers no evidence whatsoever that Sanders is attempting to seize more power. Sanders wants to his an executive order in order to pass the back-breaking process of the stubborn uncompromising Republicans .
Bernie Sander's Policy on Economy and Jobs
In this short argument, I assume that my opponent does not believe in economic stimuli. In fundamental economics, there exists a practice called government sponsored investment, and there will be a profit from this $1.5 Trillion Dollar investment .
Bernie Sanders' Policy on Taxes
My opponent's argument says that he believes that it is ludicrous to tax the 1% with 50-90% taxes. 50% is a reasonable number, especially for the wealth gap that currently infests itself in the US, and 90% is "unlikely". The individual is not as powerful as the enterprise and the enterprise will not be taxes as far as destroying their own investments. If my opponent thinks that people are entitled to the money they earn, the US would become an oligarchy with lobbies puppeteering the government, where symptoms of such are already shown . What my opponent might think is ludicrous is how the .01% of the US controls 12% of the nation's national income (Refer to Source 4).
I have properly refuted all arguments of my opponent, 4 out of 6 of which were based on un-refutable solidified foundations from international examples and fundamentals of economic management. I look forward to the argument my opponent provides, this was a challenging rebuttal round!
As this round come I would like to thank my opponent for his arguments and each of them is duly noted.
First off my opponent starts off his argument saying how the background of American history of economics is irrelevant to this debate, but I would like to say otherwise. If since the birth of the nation and throughout many people life's they have lived through a certain economic structure, and to completely change it could take a long period of time to grow accustom to these changes. Plus I never stated that the United States was a laissez-faire, but that there were Americans who believe in a laissez-faire government to a degree. Where the government doesn't get involved in the economy just because it feels like it, but if it needs to.
1. I just want to tell you I'm not a conservative nor liberal. One point I would like my opponent to see is that I have not created or constructed my own interpretation of the Constitution. If you look towards the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, Amendment 10 clearly state "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (http://constitution.findlaw.com...). These are reserved powers, which include state sales taxes, education, police forces, etc... And unless you can find somewhere in the Constitution that talks about these (expressed or implied) it proves that this is a state matter not a federal so to say it is unfound is completely disregarding the states powers. Plus to give a financial aids and grants isn't changing the essence of the educational system, but forcing colleges and universities to completely change the layout of there school getting rid of tuition fees and lower student debt while forcing them to higher more staff is. And as my opponent could see in my argument is that I did bring up the use of a progressive tax in sense while not labeling it's name as such. And to the point stating there is absolutely no proof where a progressive tax system would lead towards an economic deterrent is not true look back through history at Russia, in the high of them as a Communist nation, before the cold war there were many times when if products were made they didn't have good quantity or quality, and the reason behind that was no one had any incentive. (Would link information but it's out of history book/economic book). And although Communist Russia was an extreme showing of this, the same thing can happen in America where because the more you make the more you get taxed, people lose incentive to work as hard and to make more money because in the end they lose these earning due to taxation.
2. I understand that many (if not all) developed nations now have a system in place and I agree with the fact that tax corrupt and tax dodging should be ended, but unless this can be guaranteed to be stop the US would still have a problem. Along with this if we implement a progressive tax and then also implement another tax on the middle class for (3-5%) you are having American pay more and more until taxes, which yes, can help the nations economy in the regards of lessening the nations deficit and allow funding, but then at the same time hurt the nation, because it takes money away from the people and gives them less money to spend on the economy. And I am confused on your point, I never stated that people would be fire or eliminating jobs and facilities in this point, I just state that it would take away money from health care facilities and faculty, I believe the you were referring to point 3.
3. According to you my arguments are so "conservative" and so "libertarian", which I am neither, but the point of that is would it matter if I was either of them? But back to my point, that the economic theory of wage/price spiral has happened before both in the U.S. And other nations and if you are going to need the government put up regulations to fix a problem the government created by creating the minimum wage, why even create the minimum wage in the first place? And putting regulations to stop the percentage overload of supply and demand would in term change our economy from a mixed/command economy. Our economy is passed on supply and demand meaning if a big group of people want to buy something people will buy it, but if the product takes more to make then you get from selling it then the producer will either a) stop selling the product or b)raise the products price. Once the products price is raised then people want to be able to make more money so they can again buy said product and that's why the wage/price spiral happens. Also point  is an irrelevant site because the minimum wage increase and the benefit increase hasn't even gone into effect yet and wouldn't go into effect until 2019 and 2021. Also these negative repercussions are just assumptions for small business some have already happen. There are many instances in California (where I am from) where when the minimum wage here went from 9 dollars to 10 dollars an hour (just one dollar) some smaller business had to lay off an employee or two. Now increasing that from a one dollar change to a five dollar change that will effect some businesses.
4. While I believe that the Immigration process should be reformed and becoming a citizen should be easier. Allowing 11 million immigrants easily become citizens would indeed effect the nation. First off this leaves a bad precedent for future events of where it tells immigrants come here legally or illegally it doesn't matter, we'll make you a citizen either way. And your claim that " executive order in order to pass the back-breaking process of the stubborn uncompromising Republicans" proves that Bernie is trying to give himself more power. First off to say all Republicans are stubborn and uncompromising is a generalization and shouldn't be used (I am not a Republican) but even if they are it doesn't matter. The United States has a three branch government Legislative (Congress), Executive, and Judicial which all have checks and balances against each other. Now to say I don't want to deal with my other branches of government so I will go above them and force my policy to happen is showing that he is gaining more power than needed. Because like before this can lead to a bad precedent for further events where a President can be like I don't like this policy or I really want this to happen, but both of my other branches don't agree with me so I will just use my executive powers to force it to happen. To recap, even if the Republicans in Congress are stubborn are uncompromising they are still there to keep the President and Supreme Court in check just like these two branches are suppose to keep each other in check.
5. And I do understand that there can be a profit made from this investment but with all of it goes more taxation because we have to have the money to be able to fund this. Even with a progressive tax that alone won't be enough to fund everything Sanders' is proposing (education, health care, 1.5+ trillion dollar investment, etc...).
6. I understand the 90% is unlikely and 50% may seem reasonable but the tax percentage will be somewhere in that bracket. And you state that the "that people are entitled to the money they earn, the US would become an oligarchy with lobbies puppeteering the government" my opponent has to remember that in history there have been socialist and communist countries were an oligarchy or monarchist government where people who had little money control the government and didn't make it much better and there are democratic government's where there are still 1% but they have little to no influence on the government. So in respect no form of government is perfect and saying getting rid of the 1% will fix our government corruption problem is far from likely. Lastly on this remember, there will always be a 1% even if we do get rid of this 1% and the next one has less money than the previous but still more than the average American are we going to continue progressively taxing them until everyone has equal salaries and share the same wealth exactly where a janitor while be economically equal to surgeon or a teacher will make the same amount as someone who creates a world renown invention?
7. Lastly this is a small point to say the least, but even if Bernie Sanders' policies could work, remember he only has two-four year terms (8 years) max to implement these if he is elected twice and if only elected one he only has 4 years to implement all of these plans which will require a lot of taxation and a lot of support from the American people which he may or may not get. And if the following presidential candidate disagrees with Sanders' policies and decides to change them once he is in office then America would be in trouble because we would continuously be teeter-tottering on different economic stances.
As I come to a close for this round I would like to state that with all of Bernie's policy it would take a great amount of taxation not only from the 1% but from all the American people as well and would take support from the American people to make sure his plans are even implemented. Plus because he only has 4-8 years in office unless there is another presidential candidate like him that is elected after he finishes up his terms, it can cause damage to the American economy because the continuous change from economic stances. Lastly with the Supreme Court and Congress as checks and balances in the federal system to say all of his policies would be implemented in a manner he would deem acceptable is unlikely and the only way around this for him would be going against both groups which would show his gathering of power.
With this I would like to thank my opponent for a challenging round and apologize for my lack of sources (most were economic theories [came from books, etc...])
And now I wish you good Luck
I thank my opponent for providing his strong rebuttals.
My opponent states that the history of American economics is relevant in order to point out the rapid changes of the quasi-socialism Bernie advocates for. Sanders never states that he would instantaneously establish any of his policies, but fundamentally, gradually institute his ideas . As my opponent said, he didn't state that the US is laissez-faire, and we both agreed that there is a mixed economy, so his statements of "Many (Not all) Americans believe in a laissez-faire type government" are still irrelevant. Regardless, I'll continue with my point.
Bernie Sanders' Policy on Public Education
My opponent starts off his argument claiming he did not make an interpretation of the constitution, although that is a fallacious claim. He stated that the USFG has no powers to meddle in tertiary education which I proved wrong with the example of the federal system to aid students with college debt , which went un-refuted. The constitution does not make the direct statement in the 10th amendment that education should be left to the state , nor do any other federal laws dictate such a power. Therefore, my opponent has made an interpretation. The majority continuation of his argument in education is rendered null considering he did not refute the fiscal powers that the US holds over tertiary education, which de facto, includes a single-payer education system. My opponent claims that such a system is "forcing colleges and universities to completely change the layout of there school getting rid of tuition fees and lower student debt" which is not true. Don't make false statements which had blatantly left my prior arguments un-refuted. I made the statement before and again that a single-payer education system would not eliminate staff, and the powers are still territory of the USFG. If what my opponent said is even minimally true, then the US is currently in violation of state rights because they have a National Student Debt system. My opponent brings up the example of communist Russia as an example of the progressive tax system being a deterrent. I don't even know where to begin what is wrong with that statement. There is no progressive tax system in a communist nation, because all profit directly go to the state . A progressive tax system aligns with the income of higher classes obtaining only a majority, not the totality. That is why communism, is the ultimate economic deterrence for independent growth, while a progressive tax system is not as you had left it properly un-refuted. I also ask the voters to realize how uncanny it is of my opponent pulling out the "Communism Card" on anything resembling socialism by stating anything that results in high taxes will lead to communism.
Bernie Sanders' Policy on Health Care
My opponent starts off this argument stating that there is little guarantee that the US can stop the tax evasion problem. The US has one of the highest numbers of legal loopholes in the world , being notorious for their high amounts of tax evasion , and creativity in doing so   and while there is never a guarantee of absolute evasive suppression, if the US makes an effort to close them, there would be a benefit as I pointed out in the previous round. As for my opponent listing that people would have less money to spend on the economy, the effects would be minimal as doing basic math shows that the average annual healthcare cost in the US for the individual is over $10,000 , and a 5% tax on a middle class individual, who makes over $50,000 a year  would be $2500 giving more money to the individual rather than less. Investigations also show that these health insurance companies pocket much of the money from these annual premiums rather than dedicating it to investment or research . As for my opponent believing that profits would be cut for those in the healthcare industry, that is only an assumptive possibility. I also apologize for misreading your healthcare argument, I believed that you stated they would lose their jobs. My apologies.
Bernie Sanders' Policy on Minimum Wage
To my opponent, I was making a hyperbole of your libertarian values (the same values many conservatives identify with), as you made claims that certain powers belong to the state and accused Bernie of attempting to gain more power than intended through his policies, which are all just assertions. It would matter if you were a strong libertarian as there would be evident bias and interpretations in your debate. But I digress. My opponent claims that rasiing the minimum wage would be pointless as it would need further regulations in order to minimialize the impact of possible negative repercussions. I will point out that regulations are not necessarily a bad thing, and advancing the economic stability of the youth of nation is necessary, especially with the current fiscal problems American youth are susceptible to, today . My opponent states that (R2) Source 13 is irrelevant which is fallacious. 2 steps of the procedures of raising the minimum wage has already gone into effect without any negative repercussions so far, advancing my point. As for the rest of the argument of my opponent, he is making too many branched assumptions to fit in with the description of the policy Sanders has made. There are currently no examples in existence nor which my opponent has provided having the same intensity of Sanders' policy on minimum wage. The closest relativity is my example of New York, although not all steps have been taken so far and regulations have been known to be effective in combating supply and demand. My opponent argues that creating more regulations in the US right now transitions us out of a mixed economy which is untrue, as the definition of a mixed economy still applies to inflation regulations .
Bernie Sanders' Policy on Immigration
My opponent claims that allowing 11 million illegal immigrants citizenship in the US would impact the US strongly which I refute. These immigrants already economically impact the US for the better, and they are already a strong part of the labour force . My opponent claims that it doesn't matter afterwards if other illegal aliens enter through unconventional means which is an assumptive claim. The controversy of the current status of illegal immigrants in the US is a special exception and it would seriously damage the US economy if they were deported considering they have already melted into the economic ranks of necessity (Refer to Source 14). My opponent also failed to refute my statement of the reformation of the US immigration system to help with the problem he stated. My opponent then makes the interpretative quotation of mine regarding Bernie Sanders using executive orders over Congress. The US constitution does not stop the President from making executive orders under the basis which you state is a grab for power . To say that Republicans are stubborn may be subjective, although, it is well known that Republicans have a motto for being uncompromising  and have made statements claiming they will make the effort to stop any Democrat bills . As my opponent has stated, there is also no need to worry (under his basis) of power grabbing when the Supreme Court can get involved if they see an incursion on the US constitution, so checks & balances will stay in place. Simply put, your argument of checks and balances has just nullified your claim that Sanders is a power-grabber.
Bernie Sanders' Policy on Economy and Jobs
I believe you did not catch my statement of what a government sponsored investment is. My previous argument still goes over your current rebuttals because the US won't hit the debt ceiling even with the $1.5 Trillion dollar investment. It isn't deficit in itself .
Bernie Sanders' Policy on Taxes
My opponent didn't refute the tax plans, he only continued to other arguments. If the policies made by Sanders goes into effect, it is expected of the Democratic party to uphold his policies. If they are effective, then there also won't be a majority of Americans against it, although, we're only talking hypothetically in this, making this section subjective.
In conclusion, I have made proper rebuttals to all of my opponent's arguments regarding the mathematical possibility and confines of accessibility in economic functionality to enact these policies and staying within these constitutional bearings as well. I look forward to the next round.
I also apologize if I appeared too curt or rough in conduct, I like to get my point across strong.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.