Instigator
Points: 6

Left wing policies are better for the economy

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender
Points: 4
Description
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
Published:
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.
Published:
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.
Conclusion

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



Rebuttal



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
Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
Round 4
Published:
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.
Published:
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.
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
I don't really think that the Democratic party as a whole is trying to get money out of politics. I have seen no such legislation. Provide some if I am wrong, but I have really only heard Bernie talk about it.
The whole point of conservatism is limited government. So, we are trying to take power away from the corrupt institution.
Yes, impoverished governments do have too much power. Check out the economic freedom index. There is pretty good correlation between freedom and prosperity. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
I don't know in which ways Europe and Japan out compete us. Japan's cars are probably better because they don't have unions bankrupting the company with pension plans. Japanese car companies in America are almost all non-union.
#29
Added:
define left wing
#28
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Corruption can creep into any institution. Rather then blindly eliminating necessary institutions due to a flaw, lets try to solve the flaw. As far as money in politics, many individual are just as guilty of republicans of taking bribes, but it seems that it is the republican platform to increase the influence of money in politics, and i see that as treason. You need money to win elections, and i do not support any individual politician to unilaterally disarm, best intentions mean nothing if you dont win office, but i support the democratic agenda of minimizing as much as possible the influence of money in politics. Corruption in the regulatory system is a great argument for an audit, it is a terrible argument to simply give up on otherwise necessary laws. Done right regulations increase consumer confidence and are a boon to the economy.
I will try to find examples. I dont see how impoverished governments can carry out "huge oversight". They may have strong laws on the books, but no competent mechanism to enforce anything. Most searches for most liberitarian nations focus only on the 1st world, and the US with all its terrible regulations and high taxes, is near the top of most lists.
Europe and japan have much stronger regulatory controls and worker protections, they also have more reasonable employee/executive pay differences. how are they able to out compete us?
Instigator
#27
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
I am for some environmental regulations. Some food/drug ones, but a lot of agencies since the FDA are bought out. Big Pharma essentially owns the FDA, so as little power as possible should be given to politicians, bureaucrats, etc so that they cannot cause harm from their corruption.
I'm also in favor of patents because we need to innovate. Anti-trust regulations are good, too.
Could you mention some of these libertarian 3rd world countries? Most to my knowledge in central America and Africa have huge government oversight. Our automobile market is uncompetitive and so are many of our schools, at least K-12. I blame unions for a lot of that, though.
#26
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Just to clarify, you are against almost allregulations? We established your against any construction site safety and food/drug quality and ingredient assurance? Which regulations do you support.
The point of regulations is not to promote the market, but to make sure the market functions safely and for our benefit. Although some regulations like intellectual and property rights do actively support the market, should we remove them as well?
Which markets are we not competitive in? Cause most 1st world countries have MORE regulations then we do, and as stated before, the only nations with anything close to a liberitarian economy are 3rd world nations, and often not by choice but because their governments lack the ability to enforce anything.
Instigator
#25
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
So... competition-killing regulation is good. Got it. Because the market isn't self-regulating or anything. Maybe I feel safe walking by a construction site because the company would get a heck of a lawsuit and bad publicity if I got killed by a falling beam? I'm not arguing for no regulation. But the oversimplified stupidity lies in the idea that government bureaucrats know exactly how the market should function and should be given unlimited power to restrict markets that they likely have no experience in.
You wonder why we aren't competitive in many markets worldwide? Because regulations act as a tax. Compliance is expensive, and makes me pay more as a consumer.
Federal Regulations were around 95,000 pages in length at the end of Obama's presidency. Luckily, Trump cut those. Compliance costs were about $2 trillion/year.
https://mises.org/wire/our-huge-hidden-tax-government-regulations
Let me just be more general about an issue: rent control. That is a bad regulation. It leads to housing shortages and dilapidated housing.
#24
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Personally i believe money in politics (including but not limited to lobbying) is the biggest issue we have. Get overrepresented special interests out of the way, and i believe political discourse will improve.
Despite any abuses of the regulatory system, it is still necessary. I know right wing media has turned regulation into a dirty word, but why do you think you feel safe walking past a construction site or have confidence consuming the food and medicine? Regulations. Companies exist to satisfy a demand. They are started by entrepreneurs who see an opportunity and seize it. They conform to our needs. The people do not need to conform to corporate needs. Thats complete backward thinking. We have to make sure the consumer is safe and has confidence in their purchases. We have to make sure the economy and our public resources are sustainable and their utilization is not hoarded or destroyed by self interested individuals, at our expense. Regulations ensure companies arent laundering money for gangs or supporting international terrorists. This anti regulation crusade is oversimplified stupidity.
Yes, bad regulations should be removed, on individual merit. Not cause someone thinks we have too many or too few. If each one has a good purpose, it doesnt matter how many we have. If one is bad, it still doesnt matter how many we have. We need the good ones and we should eliminate any bad ones. Like the hypothetical ones who referenced.
Can you name any federal regulations you feel are hurting more then helping?
Instigator
#23
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
Absolutely agree. Lobbying is a big corruption issue.
My point is that this goes both ways. Right-winged people can deregulate to help a company. Left-wing people can help build monopolies by regulating competition. These bootleggers are the exact same as the deregulated companies, just in reverse.
#22
Added:
--> @billbatard
Absolutely, but also it can be seen as a general comparison of overall performance between the parties
Instigator
#21
Added:
which policies?
#20
Added:
devil in the details
#19
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Please dont jump to conclusions regarding my sources of information and dont dismiss my arguments until after ive made them and youve responded to them.
I already stated who im referring to, the mainstream american right and the republican party and the ideas on its platform. Including a range from corporate subsidizing and liberitarian talking points. Whether they are neo, classic, or mixed, what im talking about what is in reality, and the policies right wing representatives actually pass.
These bootleggers sound like they found a loophole in an otherwise good system. That definetely should be addressed, mostly via the left wing push to get money out of politics, and make sure any money left in is openly accounted for. It is the right that promotes the practice of lobbying that is the root of most government evil today. This loophole that needs closing does not change the massive benefit that is sensible regulation.
So shall we agree, lobbying bad, regulations still up for debate?
Im probably going to restart this debate since crossed clearly trolled me, would dare to contend?
Instigator
#18
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
You are referring to neoconservatives, not real conservativism. Here is what conservatives believe: "Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation and free enterprise". Since conservatives want less regulation, that would mean that they would want less regulation for everyone, lower taxes for everyone, etc. You are also very much mistaken saying that liberals always like to equally implement regulation. Ever heard of bootleggers and baptists? It is a phenomena in which companies lobby for more regulation to keep newer competitors out of the market. So, wouldn't they be choosing the winners as those companies in existence rather than potential future competitors? Also, ex-ante regulation is regulation that doesn't apply to companies already in existence. Are you saying that this isn't choosing winners or being corrupt and bought? If you think so, then I don't think this conversation can go much further. You really need to stop listening to ultra-biased news sources and realize that anyone from any party can be corrupted and when that occurs, they are no longer true to their values and can be corporatists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#United_States_2
#17
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
I will spend some time sharing my thoughts about it once I finish my argument in the theism debate I'm currently in. I need to finish up my constructive today
#16
Added:
--> @crossed
Do you have any intention of participating in this debate that you accepted just because "it was debate number 777"? Forfeit or back out. This was uncool.
Instigator
#15
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Nem
-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.
Cross
-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.