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

Donald trump is currently saving america

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 713 times Debate No: 119311
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Just to start this off I'd like to clarify that I identify as 100% Hispanic. I feel no hatred nor any discriminatory sentiments towards my race nor any other.

So let us get started. I believe, Through new economic policies and strategic trade changes Donald Trump is currently saving America. Well, Maybe not saving it, But solidifying America's spot as the number one economy and just overall country (culturally, Progressivity, And etc). While Trump's social policies may spell NO for many of those who strive for equality in our day to day lives, They don't really matter if the employment rate goes down or if America finds itself in a state of stagnation or depression.

Also, Objectively, Money is the maker of all things, Whether we like it or not. Thus, By stimulating the economy it sends ripples of life all throughout the aspects of America (social policy, Education, Health services, And etc)

We may believe corporate greed is tearing us apart, But we must ask ourselves where would we be without it?


I'll start by saying that I am a white man from Alabama, And I think Trump may be the greatest threat this county faces at the moment, Though he isn't undercutting the USA without a lot of help.

So in order to avoid ranting about those things, I'll try to stay on track by rebutting your statements one at a time.

As far as new economic policies, Maybe you can clarify what you're referring to. Trump's domestic economics are standard Republican menu items. Tax cuts during economic upswings are counterproductive, Since the govt should be reducing debt during good times and spending during bad times. This is the opposite.

I'm actually not totally against tariffs in concept, But I think Trumps recklessness may really hurt us. What's good about Trump is he's the first guy to push back against the gospel of "economic growth" that both major parties have bought into. However going against China at the same time as weakening our alliances with other countries couldn't be more stupid.

"[Trump's social policies] don't really matter don't really matter if the employment rate goes down or if America finds itself in a state of stagnation or depression. "

I'm quoting you so you can read this again and see how wrong you are. Times of economic hardship are exactly when racism gets bad. Jews were in Germany a long time, But it was during the Great Depression that Nazism took over. In the US, Rates of illegal immigration are lower than they were during the 90s and 00s, Yet people are much more angry about it after the recession. Racial scapegoating is the first thing that will happen if economic collapse occurs.

". . . Ripples of life. . . "
The purpose of taxation is to do this. But Trump cut taxes, Remember? So when the rich get richer, It sends ripples of life to their private schools and to the health services that they buy for themselves. They don't need social services, So Trump is cutting those. The idea behind all republican policy is to exempt the rich from the responsibility of taking care of anyone else. Under those conditions, Greed does not help overall. Neither does "economic growth. " If your pay is cut in half, And mine doubles, Then "economic growth" has occurred between the two of us. That's what they mean when they say it. That's where America is headed, And Trump is helping it along.
Debate Round No. 1


1. County or Country?

2. Tumeric fails to equate for the current ongoing trade war with China (yes, I'm aware there was a truce). You're right during economic prosperity a government should reduce its debt, And spend during bad times (expansionary monetary policies vs contractionary), But with the trade war (which is likely to escalate) Trump must prepare the country for any possible hits the Chinese economy could throw. By reducing taxes the Trump administration places more money in the hands of the population allowing for a protective barrier on said population from the trade war. This also reduces the consequences of a failure if the government were to take a big hit from the Chinese party. This does temporarily sacrifice social security, But, There are always sacrifices in any war.

3. What allies are you referring to? China's "exclusive" [from America] allies seem to be made up mostly by 3rd world countries in the middle east and northeastern Africa. The allies I assume you're referring to are the EU and Japan; both of which seem to remain on America's side, But who knows what could happen in the future. In that sense I suppose you're right, Buts its merely a risk that must be taken.

4. You misunderstood this. You're confusing social policies with social welfare.
Regardless, Your argument is right (even though it doesn't relate). WIth an emphasis on future economic prosperity (keyword: future) Trump is doing the opposite of what you just described. A prosperous economy = prosperous social welfare & a depressive economy = a depressive social welfare (just basing it on what you said, Just look at the other side)

5. You say this as if the tax cuts are exclusive to the rich, They're not; https://www. Thebalance. Com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968 (just scroll down to the chart) nor are any one's pay getting "cut in half". Trump placed more money into the population's hands (tax cuts), It is their choice as to what they can spend the extra money on.

Tumeric fails to understand the threat posed by China. China seeks to dominate all prosperous future sectors, Just look at China 2025, Which Trump is most likely going to ask to be thrown out once the tariff's 90 days are over.


1) Country

2) Targeted tax cuts have been used during economic distress. Obama did this during the recession, Which Republicans would not allow to continue after they took control of congress (Republicans are not in favor of tax cuts -- that's a misconception. They are in favor of tax cuts for the rich. ) Obama cut a specific tax that shows up in paychecks, Favoring wage earners, Who suffered the most from the recession. The Trump cuts, Which were actually the brainchild of Paul Ryan (who opposes the tariffs) favor the richest Americans. From the source you linked to:
"Among individuals, The tax plan helps higher-income families the most. The Tax Foundation said those in the 95 to 99 percent range would receive a 2. 2 percent increase in after-tax income. Those in the 20-80 percent income range would receive a 1. 7 percent increase. "
"The Act makes the U. S. Progressive income tax more regressive. Tax rates are lowered for everyone, But they are lowered the most for the highest-income taxpayers. "

Tax cuts targeted toward the rich don't make sense in a coming trade war. Trump knows it. That's why he's implemented subsidies for farmers, Which rely on taxes to pay for.

3) Conflict with China has two possible fronts: economic and military. Not long ago, Trump was threatening tariffs on European cars. This would cause Europe to rely on other markets for survival (other markets = guess who). In any case it proves the US to be an unreliable partner. Militarily, Trump has been casting doubt on NATO, While seeking to preserve our navigational freedom in the increasingly disputed South China Sea. Given our continuing "freedom of navigation" exercises though waters that China now claims to control, We could easily be the ones calling for NATO support. Then there was the TPP. Yes, This was another major trade pact that would help the rich. But it's main goal was to create an asian block of economies which excluded China, And could rival its economic power in the region. Cancelling the TPP was a big win for China.

4) Not sure what you're referring to here, Can you rephrase?

5) Answer in #2.
By "cut in half" I guess I wasn't clear. Im not referring to any policy -- that comment was a sidebar to explain why your economic ideas are wrong. I'm talking about income inequality. Which means we live in a bifurcated economy. When income inequality is high, Members of our society do not share the same outcomes or incentives. So "economic growth", Tax cuts, And even recessions have very different results for rich people than they do for regular folk. For example, Many rich people got even richer during the recession. Therefore you cannot argue for something just because its good for the economy, Because there is no single economy anymore. Tax cuts that benefit the rich will not help those who are vulnerable to any moves made by China.

I am not underestimating China, I'm saying Trump is handling things stupidly. As I write this the stock market is in flux because no one has a clue what "truce" was reached with China the other day. I would guess nothing was agreed upon, Because Trump is a serial liar and the world is aware of this. If Trump claims China is violating their agreement, Exactly zero people will believe him. This is the bargaining position Trump has put the US into.
Debate Round No. 2


1. Oh, Okay. I just thought you had a personal anecdote within your county. (If you do, Go right ahead)

2. I'm failing to see your rebuttal here, You merely stated facts and opinions, Please elaborate. But I do see an element of inequality distress, To that I say: so what? If it allows us all to prosper, Why not? It's like a child complaining about not getting as many candies as the other kids during Halloween. Worst case scenario would be a civil war, But the likelihood of that is next to none.

3. I think you're right about this one. I can definitely agree with you about diplomatic ties being hurt or even severed (I'm Canadian and I can see it first hand), But this distrust is generally associated with Trump himself. So ties would definitely 'heal' once Trump is out of office, Maybe even fully recovered depending on the next administration. This implies that Trump wouldn't win the next election, Which I think most of us can safely say is true.

4. Sorry, Mb. I made a mistake and meant to discard the first line, But by that time I had already submitted (I posted a comment about this). I'm basically using your argument against you. Like you said the recession made people dislike immigrants and the working class in general. Thus, By stimulating the economy, Future social policies would also improve. This entire argument is referring to people's general misplaced hatred for Trump, In his social policies (the infamous wall, And immigration ban) they place too much importance onto it (this is largely related to personal opinion, But objectivity is required).

5. Again, So what? You're claiming motivation and inequality have a negative relationship, Which may be true to a certain degree. But the long run aggregate supply doesn't change with a decrease in population motivation. Even if incentives were lowered the market would simply find equilibrium with the long run aggregate supply (I'm aware this is an oversimplification, But the general gist is still there).

You're mistaking stupidity with aggressivity. Also, Volatility always goes up in response to events like these (there's a name for this, I just forgot) you should never predict anything on how the stock market is doing in a small window of time; that's how you lose money. The only people that know the true impact of the truce is the ones who negotiated it, They're [both sides] calling it very successful, But chances are they're lying. So what? China is still in a bad position and outcomes don't look too great for them - the real truce comes when the 90 days are up, Which would most likely involve the abolishment or a contraction of "Made in China 2025". You have to remember that many other countries (South Korea, Japan, UK, Etc) REALLY don't like China's plan for a core material monopoly.

Look at the future, Not what you see around you.

Also, Bifurcated? Math major/enthusiast?


2) I'm saying that tax cuts aimed at the rich are not helpful during conflict with China. These cuts are not targeted to help the people who china can hurt.

3) Unfortunately, "healing" international ties may mean the US backing down. This will make it much harder to deal with those situations properly. Thus Trump is weakening our country. Also, There's a very good chance he'll win re-election. Behind Trump are millions of people who think Trump is great. Even after Trump goes away, His voters will not. Moreover, The systems and discontents that allowed Trump to take over the country are not going away. Trump is just an indicator that America is fundamentally unstable. The worst thing is that he's making it obvious that we cannot think in our own best interests as a nation.

4) Tax cuts don't stimulate the economy overall for very long unless they are targeted broadly. Giving money to rich people makes the economy smaller. This is one big problem with income inequality. Another problem is that political power shifts away from most people. You argued yourself that money is the maker of all things, So you should take this seriously.

5) I don't understand what you mean by motivation and incentives so I can't respond to this one.

Stupidity and aggressiveness are not mutually exclusive. Therefore one cannot mistake one for the other.
Aggressiveness is meant to expose weakness, But China's leaders are more likely to take damage than fold in front of everyone. Anyone would. He's turning international disputes into contests of ego. I don't see how that's gonna save us.
Debate Round No. 3


juya forfeited this round.


tumeric forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by juya 3 years ago
This is fun!
Posted by juya 3 years ago
made a mistake. Please ignore the first line on number 4.
Posted by Block.19 3 years ago
So far it seems like Juya does not have a firm understanding of economics. I am curious to see how Juya will respond to Tumeric's rebuttal.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.