Instigator / Pro
Points: 13

Left wing policies are better for the economy


The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Points: 6
It may seem counter intuitative at first with republicans being the business friendly party. However history shows truth, and being existing business friendly isnt the same as overall market friendly. Being chummy with businesses often stifles competition. A left wing equally regulated economy is far more free and fair then a right wing subsidized economy where hand picked businesses get unfair tax benefits while acting with maximum impunity.
Round 1
Premise 1. This is a bit anecdotal as presidents dont have total control over the economy, but it is a consistent pattern going back many presidents. And a pattern is very clear. Democratic presidents have seen greater stock market growth, and stronger other economic indicators

Premise 2. Blue states, with their high taxes and extra regulations have the biggest economies, generate most of the nations wealth, and house most of the major companies. Why havent the taxes and regulations driven companies out? Because taxes arent bad. They paid for the roads and security those companies appreciate. They also educate the public that will become their workers and consumers. Support for the public in the form of higher wages, sanitation, etc also allows for a steady, and healthy, consumer base. It has its advantages You may disagree with my reasons, but the success of blue states vs red states is objective fact.
Thank you for making this debate. I don't really talk politics much because i believe liberals have been blinded by god. Hopefully that assumption is wrong. By left wing policy i will assume you mean the last 4 presidents because anything past that. The Democrat and republican parties were a lot different.

Anyway that article was from 2012. That was before trump. Trump has had record unemployment the lowest of any president in history. trump added hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. Of which Obama said he would have to waive a magic wand to get back.Trump has stopped us from just freely giving billions of dollars to china And now china is giving us billions of dollars to our economy. The economy is booming under trump. even though trump has cut so many taxes.

College students like trumps tax plan when they think it is Bernie tax plan.This just shows they just do not like the trump name

Obama was the worst economic president in history. Obama started with a debt of 10 trillion when he left there was 20 trillion. Bad for economy

Obama makes a deal with Iran who we are enemy's with to give 150 billion dollars to destroy our ally's Israel.Bad for economy

Iranian plots financed, bizarrely, by Mr. Obama's giveaways. The mullahs can now echo Lenin: "The West will supply us the rope to hang them.

Obama gives 221 million dollars to Palestinians our enemy's before leaving office.Bad for economy

Obama gives 1.5 billion dollars to Muslim's by bypassing congress. Bad for economy.He is funding terrorism.Tax dollars at work

It cost 100 billion dollars for illegal immigration. This economic disaster. It is the dems fault because democrats are colluding with Mexico. 900 thousand illegals are allowed to vote in California

A FAIR study in 2017 found illegal immigrants are a net consumer of taxpayer benefits worth more than $100 billion a year, not including the cost of enforcing the border.

Trump is economically great. Obama was freely giving out billions of dollars to questionable causes. While we were in debt. Bill was terrible  bush was a bit least terrible but still pretty terrible. Obama is the worst finance person on the planet who was giving billions to destroy. Anyway Obama was terrible for finances ten times worst then bush was. I will go into the Clinton in next round they are no better


Premise 2. Blue states, with their high taxes and extra regulations have the biggest economies, generate most of the nations wealth, and house most of the major companies. Why havent the taxes and regulations driven companies out? Because taxes arent bad. They paid for the roads and security those companies appreciate. They also educate the public that will become their workers and consumers. Support for the public in the form of higher wages, sanitation, etc also allows for a steady, and healthy, consumer base. It has its advantages You may disagree with my reasons, but the success of blue states vs red states is objective fact
Taxes are not bad when there going to roads and infrastructure. Most of our Obama tax dollars went away to other country's as gifts.

support for the public in the form of higher wages,
That is only if you have a government job. Meaning if your a crooked politician with a mansion. The government aint paying for a McDonald salary. plus about the money for education is a joke. The more education you get the dumber you are.Blue states are not objectively richer then red states. I can name just as many  poor blues states as red states. Coff coff California and New Yorks   homeless crisis Coff Coff

I can even find an article saying red states are getting richer when blue states are getting poorer.

Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
The result of a single administration is anecdotal. This is not a centralized economy, and even if it was, our divided government does not give all power to the president. It is a consistent pattern over many administrations that makes my proof powerful. Im glad we agree about the benefit of taxes, but foreign aid under obama was a fraction of us spending, around 1% as it has been and continues to be under trump. Your information is wrong.

Blue states have high homelessness because they have high rent because their land is desireable and many people want to live there. I will not dispute that red states are growing faster. When all you have is a penny, finding a penny is like growing 100%. not hard to grow fast when your so small. Your claims about education are unsubstantiated, and the government can ensure your McDonalds salary pays a normal wage for the richest country in the world. 

Re: your claims about trump.
Unemployment has been dropping consistently since obama ended the recession. If i make the largest fortune, then you inherit it and make a few more bucks, yes you now have the largest fortune, but you dont get the credit for building that fortune. All growth indicators are *slowing down* under trump, and economic warning signs are going off regularly. It is telling when most of your success happens when you first come into office before you actually do anything. 

Trump is also Building debt as fast as obama, except obama spent to get us out of a recession, trump is spending like mad during boom times, and possibly leading us into a recession.

The money obama gave to iran was irans money frozen by sanctions, not american money. And it was released as part of the nuclear deal. 

In line with my argument, trumps ?right wing? economic policies are terrible in comparison with left wing economic policies. Also, please properly research your facts. Im sorry it took me so long to respond, but between your reason for accepting this debate "it was debate number 777" and your often unsunstantiated conspiracy theory claims (us colluding with mexico on immigrants, illegals voting, and total misunderstanding of how tarrifs work) were rather discouraging.
Con brings trump cuts foreign aid money. This is strange since i always here dems saying we should stay out of the affairs of other country's. He try's to say what happened under trump happens under Obama. Obama increased foreign aid by 80 percent. Most of that money was given to our enemy's.
According to cons article trump cut foreign aid And undid obama stuff. That means trump helped under trump.

Blue states have high homelessness because they have high rent because their land is desireable and many people want to live there. I will not dispute that red states are growing faster. When all you have is a penny, finding a penny is like growing 100%. not hard to grow fast when your so small. Your claims about education are unsubstantiated, and the government can ensure your McDonalds salary pays a normal wage for the richest country in the world. 
People really think farmers are poor this is simply untrue. Red states are not poor. The usa is the largest supplier of agricultural.

Its a bit more 50 50 then what cons and liberals would like you to believe.

9 out of ten of the poorest states are not republican.

Red states are no that poor that a penny is 100 percent growth.

Con try's to say Obama was the reason why trump has a better economy. That is such fake news its disgusting. Obama's era we had 10 trillion dollars in new debt and we were poor. red states voted in someone to hep the economy. Economy is booming what do you think happened. Obama only spent money to get us into debt.

Facts are under obama we were in a recession under trump we got out of it.

Economist say trump is responsible for booming economy not Obama.
Lastly con makes excuses for why he forfeited and he said my argument took 9 days to refute in a name calling way and says my reasons for doing things is stupid

i don't like taxes. Someone who does big pharma for a living would not have a problem with it. at the end of my life i wound provably spend a couple million dollars in taxes where did that money go.They can be a good thing but it is never used to help us. They go to rich people.
--> @bmdrocks21
Lol. Yes. Im sure we can go on forever but this generalized and shifting conversation wont get us any conclusions, but it was been fun.
If i.may clarify a few things. "Capitalist" wasnt meant to be derogatory. Capitalism is the game, capitalists are simply the individual players. I would call anyone who opens a business as a capitalist, although workers could also fit that a more technical definition. I dont think businesses are bad, they have specific job, profits, and they have every right to fight for them, although they do not have the right to keep consumers and employees from defending their interests as well.
Of course we should be competitive, but imo, we are over competitive already. Almost all 1st world nations either have stronger regulations, strong welfare programs, and/or higher taxes. These companies are supposed to be lead by entrepreneurs and innovators. They are supposed to find and exploit market opportunities in a given situation, not mainpulate the situation to make business a no brainer! Thats not an entrepreneur, that's a leech. I dont care about the survival of an individual business. Bad businesses are supposed to fail. We should impoverish our people so that they can make money easy.
The GM employees are standing up for their rights. I do not think americans should surrender to the decrees of owners, otherwise we are already a feudalist nation. Teachers have had to buy supplies with their own sparce salaries, a short term strike is better then perpetuating that situation and i question whether the market has done a good job determining salaries. How are bankers paid as well if not better then doctors? A top banker makes a world class neurosurgeon look like a bum with far less education, effort, or societal benefit. Teachers should not be paid like bus drivers. They are valuable and should be rewarded. When we passed laws to favor our car industry, american cars became considered garbage. Businesses should be challenged, not cuddled
--> @Nemiroff
I feel as though we can end this here. We have some points we agree on like lobbying being bad. I agree that big corporations can be bad, perhaps to a different degree. Big companies have more efficient supply chains and reach an economy of scale, but I do believe in anti-trust laws because competition is what makes capitalism great! You're right, (I wouldn't use the word 'capitalists') but businesses are to a certain degree anti-capitalism. Competition is pro-consumer and anti-business. We need a lot of competition, which is why I would like to solve our healthcare systems' issues by increasing competition, rather than creating a government monopoly. Parents should choose what plan is best for their family, not the government.
You have to understand that there are a lot of incompatibilities at play here. You say that our products must be competitive to make us a competitive economy. Well, labor unions exponentially drive up costs. GM is losing $50-100 million every day because of the strike. How is that good for us? How has the teacher's union helped our nation's children? You have to understand that, while companies are anti-competition, unions are anti-competition too. They need their business to stay in business to keep their job. They are against immigration, because they would have to compete with them for jobs. Teachers unions are against merit-based pay. Simply paying people more might make the consumer base a bit better off. That can be a good thing, but not if it is at the cost of destroying domestic companies.
I have a lot of classical economic works that I am prepared to read to become more informed. Thanks for the conversation :)
--> @bmdrocks21
If min wage increases consumer spending and business patronage, what business in its right mind would cut back on staff with a rush of new customers at their door? The increase in sales will partially, if not entirely, negate the increased costs. At least in big cities with large numbers of consumers. This is often missed in the over simplified min wage analysis.
What really hurts our economy is big corporations stifling competition, like amazon making knock offs of any successful product on their small.merchant marketplace and then only advertising their product in searchs. Capitalism needs competition, but capitalists fight to destroy the competition. Yes its possible for government to.pass bad laws, but companies left to their own devices will inevitably create monopolies and abuse our systems to their exclusive benefit. The invisible hand is bullshit. Its a lie just like trickle down economics to get you to shoot yourself in the foot in the name of idealism over reality.
--> @bmdrocks21
I dont understand how conservatives can claim that unions, regulations, etc stiffle the economy. I get how it seems logical on a very basic level, but so does a stationary flat earth, that doesnt make it true. Most other 1st world nations have higher effective taxes, more regulations, more unions.
It was around 70s or 80s that we started demonizing unions and regulations (even the moderate dems like bill clinton). And guess what, thats about the time the rest of the 1st world (with more regulations, more unions, and similar taxes) started to catch up to us.
Conservatives focus to much on the profits of the wealthy thinking it will all trickle down, but it mostly languishes in savings accounts or gets bounced around the this is benefitial only to the few directly profiting from it now, and hurts our entire economy in the long term.
Liberitarianism works in a mom and pop.society. but when the company your dealing with is a goliath, its only fair the people shouldnt have to fend for themselves individually. They should have a right to be represented by a union. United we stand, divided we fall.
The profits of individual companies is not a measure of economic health. A strong consumer base is.
--> @Nemiroff
And I am saying that governmental policy can influence supply and make it more expensive. Think of rent control. That create housing shortages and leads to dilapidated infrastructure.
I don't know. I'd like unions to work. That would probably be most efficient, but that would tank our economy and make us super uncompetitive. Minimum wages create unemployment, so that would spur a greater reliance on welfare.
Yeah, progressive taxes are gradual. The fact is that the more you make, the less of your marginal income you get to keep. Why are those additional few hundred thousand less worthy of keeping than the first 10k? Progressive taxes work alright, I'll give you that. Income is very inelastic. That doesn't mean you should pilfer the profits of their labor.
Amazon pays zero in federal taxes. They pay payroll taxes, as well as state and local taxes. I don't think it is okay for buffet to pay less in taxes than his secretary. That is why I am for a flat tax with no deductions for people above the poverty line. Everyone should pay their fair share.
I am looking more critically at my positions. At least in terms of demand side vs supply side economics. I don't see myself flipping, but perhaps becoming a little more moderate.
I might pick a debate such as "People in Red states are better off than those in Blue states"
--> @bmdrocks21
Or for another angle i can argue con on right wing policies like why the invisible hand is nonsense, or how markets can fail us and themselves. Either direction is fine.
--> @bmdrocks21
I want to convert you if i can. What issue would most convince you that left wing economics, obviously not every policy, work.
Im sure it will take more then 1 debate to do it. I picked the subject but I ask that you pick the first specific topic, and nothing easy for me. Min wage, Gov interference, government ventures. This debate (not us in the comments) was wholly disappointing.
--> @bmdrocks21
Regarding the rich and homeless. The rich move to big blue cities because thats where the theaters, museums, restaurants and nightclubs are. The poor move to the city because thats where all the jobs are. Both of these independently create demand, and that raises prices. None of this is a "democratic policy". It isnt a policy at all. Its basic, logical, economics. I stated so before, i think you ignored it and restated your opinion.
This is what happens when you successfully run a city, or potentially any region. But success has nuance as well, and dealing with that nuance, like making sure workers can still make it into the city and that working is worth it. You do want to make work worthwhile right? Because hungry people get desperate, and if work isnt feeding them, crime might. I prefer a min wage, but ill take welfare over police state. Welfare is often cheaper. Most of these arent appeals to your humanity but logical solutions to our problems.
Ill have to look into hong kong, but i will say that democracy worked ok 3000 years ago in tiny greek city states, it collapsed when it got any bigger til 2,500 years later. What works at for a town may not work for our sea to sea nation.
Actually we are all taxed the same! Recently looked this up, forgive the excitement over a new argument. Bill gates first 20k gets taxed about as much as a welfare recepient. We all get to keep nearly all our 20k. When he earns his first 100k, he kept as much of that 100k as any accountant or whenever else in the same jurisdiction. Its only those last excessive dollars that lose 35%. And even then, thats before exceptions. So the "progressive" system is pretty damn equal. We all get taxed the same. We just never get as far up the ladder as the successful. Earning more always gets you more money in the end. And the taxes are very proportional.
+you get amazon paying zero (0) !!!! Taxes
And buffet paying less % (the thing your complaining about) then his secretary in taxes!!!
--> @Nemiroff
Let me know any subjects you are willing to debate on. If they interest me, I would be willing to debate once school gives me a break.
--> @Nemiroff
Deregulation is just a partisan thing. It makes the base happy. I think it is usually good because it reduces costs and any market inefficiencies they may have caused. They cut thousands of regulations, so listing them all out would be rather time-consuming.
I don't see how we are talking past each other about selective regulation. Let us say you make a regulation(that you say is industry-wide). Now lets say a Republican gets rid of that regulation. How would that not also have an industry-wide effect of deregulation?
Hong Kong would be my ideal economic example. They are the freest country in the world according to the economic freedom index. They have a median income that rivals ours, and they hardly have any natural resources to prop up their economy!
The government allows the rich to make the most of their resources. Keyword: their. It is their property that they have a right to. Just because they were more successful doesn't mean they have less of a right to that.
I'm fine with local/state minimum wages because of different costs of living. I'm certain we agree on that. Federal minimum wages are kind of trash. Another big reason that it is expensive to live in blue states is high taxes! Regulations on buying houses in Washington, Oregon, and California make housing much more expensive. Economics is part of the rising costs. However, with stifling regulations, you inhibit producers from making more, affordable housing for the consumers. You create inefficiencies by interfering in the market.
My connection was showing how "wealth inequality" and "helping the poor" are always at the center of Democrats' debates, but the effects of their policies show another story. I can't name one major city in a Blue state that doesn't having overwhelming poverty and high crime rates. Detroit, Chicago, New York are all run by Democrats and the poor there suffer tremendously.
--> @bmdrocks21
Is there any topic you wish to debate me on? I find the limited rounds and audience help focus the subject and make reaching a conclusion much more likely.
--> @bmdrocks21
Im not sure your point about deregulation/regulation.
I do not mean the right selectively deregulates. My concern is that they blindly deregulate. All trump (and others) do is brag how many regulations they eliminate without discussing or caring about which regulations the eliminate or their individual pro/con.
I also dont understand selective regulation. Unless you mean promoting an industry like renewables, just like the gov promoted railroads, motorvehicles, buclear, and many other revolutionary technologies that were too new and risk for private investment but were for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Left wing regulations regulate whole industries and are not company specific so it cannot be selective except in some very nuanced ways. The good thing about government is we can demand investigations, answers, and leadership changes if we do smell something fishy. We have no say in private enterprises.
We have amongst the loosest regulations are the first world, who do we have to be more competitive then? Do you want a race to the bottom so we can start competing with 3rd world nations for shit jobs? I would rather invest in education and start stealing the good jobs from the first world, solidifying ourselves as a superpower for the next century.
The goventment enables the rich to make the most of their resources, i dont see why it cant do the same for the poor. And either way, my reasons for supporting the poor is to maintain a functioning consumer base and a stable economy so that we as a nation can prosper in addition to the bleeding heart idealism.
--> @bmdrocks21
Im not sure what connection you are trying to make between wealthy and homeless both living in expensive blue cities. Wealthy want to live in places with things to do. Restaurants, clubs, high rises with big views. Therefore they go to cities. The poor want to live in places with available work, which also ends up in cities. Everyone wants to live in cities, which drives up demand, land value, and rent. Rising rents cause more and more poor to become homeless. This is economics, not political policies. The millionaires are not causing the homelessness, the democrats are not causing the homelessness, economics and the so called "invisible hand" is causing the homelessness. And without affordable housing or other assistance programs the workers the city needs will not be able to available anywhere near, and the whole system collapses. Democratic policies like affordable housing and minimum wage ensure that the cities have workers who can afford to live there. Workers the cities badly need. Maybe thats why most cities, especially the successful ones, are deep blue, even in red states. Laissez faire policies would destroy a city.
This presumed connection between the wealthy and homeless that you tried to make, but in all honesty could only say "isnt that suspicious" and couldnt actually connect. Is a dumbing down of reality in order to reach a convenient conclusion.
Im trying to focus the discussion so we can reach a conclusion, so i skipped a few points like guns and neocons that could be whole conversations themselves. Feel free to bring them up later.
--> @Nemiroff
I was thinking of a clip of Elizabeth warren calling them "costs" instead of taxes. Let me be clear: I know our health insurance system is trash. I think that a single payer system would be better than what we have now. I just think that solving it through the private sector would be optimal. We need to deregulate and increase competition. I would be fine with offering vouchers for people below the poverty line to use to find a health insurance plan.
You see, I agree the government "helps" the rich become wealthy through the enforcement of laws. That is the role of all governments. However, those laws are applied to everyone equally. It is therefore not the role of the government to then give special treatment to those who didn't fair as well. I have problems with bailing out GM and the banks. That was terrible. That is special treatment that should not have happened.
I am pretty sure that poll was referring to "hate speech". That would be things like racist comments. While I don't support people who speak like that, I support their right to speak.
--> @Nemiroff
Blue states, like I said, have some of the highest concentrations of billionaires. When you contrast that with Blue states having some of the highest rates of homelessness, it really makes me begin to question if your party gives a damn about the poor. Also, do you have any proof that rich people both move to Blue states and then fund out of state Republicans? Are you neglecting that state and local laws, taxes, and regulations exist?
I have seen that you said you agree with our grievances and not our solutions. Fine. Difference of opinion. However, you then state that our party is corporatist. You say that we support only deregulating for certain companies, and then you pretend that your party doesn't do the exact same thing! Your party selectively regulates. I know that you personally are against that. I am too. Unfortunately, neo-cons and neo-liberal sellouts exist within our parties. That is not what a conservative supports and I am sure what your party does is quite often against your ideology as well. I don't know much about McConnell to be honest.
I would need proof that right-wing (pro-business) policies are holding us back. There are lots of RINOs and Neo-Cons that are ruining my party. We should find more pro-life, pro-gun leaders who are against lobbying.
I think that, if you pass enough tests you should be able to own darn near any gun. I would have to ponder on how to structure them, but psychological and gun safety tests would be a good start.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
See comments:
Debate got trolled... If not just trolling, even when asked, con could not name even a second conservative president to support his case.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
-Democratic presidents are better for the economy.
-Democratic states are better off economically, proving how higher taxes doesn't kill business. No source attached.
R1 note:Nem's second point was great as he anticipated that con would bring up how democratic policies would discourage business and also provided reasons why businesses do/should want more taxes. However, his best point was unsourced.
-Nem's source is before Trump, Trump has lowered unemployment and thwarted China. Also, Trump cut taxes.
-Cross points out how much debt Obama added.
-He then points out poor economic decisions Obama made.
-He than shows the economic strain illegal immigrants have on the economy
R1 Note: Cross doesn't really prove that right wing policies are better here, just that Trump is good for the economy and Obama is bad for the economy. Nem was able to prove that in an all time sense leftwing presidents performed better and that Blue states were better off economically than red states. His illegal immigrant point is proficient, as it's an example of a left wing policy blundering.
Cross Rebuttals R1
-points out how taxes are okay when they are being spent on roads/infrastructure.
-He says the more education you get the dumber you are, but fails to back this up in any way with a source.
- states how red states are getting richer while blue states are getting poorer.
R1 Rebuttal Note: Cross's only proficient statement was his "red states are improving" point. He tries to address Nem's point about companies wanting tax dollars to go to education by stating education makes you dumber, which is entirely unsourced. Cross's points on spending on roads/ infrastructure are agreed upon by Nem.
R2/R3 Note-Nem forfeits, this is very poor conduct, therefore Cross wins the conduct point. Cross doesn't make any arguments.
Nem R4
-Points out how pointing to only Trump isn't proper as a president doesn't run 100% of the nations economy.
-Also concedes that Red states are growing faster.
-Proves how unemployment has always been falling, so it might not be as a result of Right wing policies.
-Also how Trump is building debt just as fast as Obama.
R4 Note: Nem refuted all of Cross's points, Cross relied way to much on trump despite it being an anecdotal point with many other factors, one of these factors was nems point about trump not running the whole economy, so trump isn't an example of right wing policies succeeding, Nem gives me great reasons to believe Trump has failed economically with the rising debt.
Cross R4
-points out how Trump wasn't just successful because of Obama.
-9/10 poorest aren't republican- the way his source comes to this conclusion is faulty.
Overall Con doesn't try to prove Right wing policies are better, but that Trump has been good for the economy and Obama was bad, Nem proved that nation wide right now Blue states are better off, and left wing presidents were better at running the economy while giving me good reason to believe Trump wasn't good for the economy given how he's increasing the debt by alarming amounts and how Trump may not be the reason for economic growth as he doesn't run the whole economy and unemployment has been falling for years.