Left wing policies, in general, are better for the economy.

Half way through voting bump

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 2 points to con for sources, 2 points to pro for conduct and grammar

>Reason for Decision:
Personally, I think right-wing policies are more beneficial for the economy, but the instigator was clearly a more affluent speaker and probably won this debate.

Reason for Mod Action>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.

Saying that, the vote is also insufficient as it doesn’t meet the voting rules mentioned in the code of conduct. The voter should review the CoC rules for what constitutes a valid vote.
*******************************************************************

Note the word egalitarian in your definition. What part of a people living in fear while a ruling class lives like kings sounds egalitarian. You labeled it ECONOMICALLY left wing knowing full well that isnt the full definition. I don't see how a dictatorship is egalitarian.

some of the most horrifying violations of human rights have been commited by the left

So con basically said "that is a bad argument to support your point, here is a good argument to support your point though."

Nice.

I just said that us being a 1st world country with slavery had no significance. Why does it matter that we were a 1st world country? We didn't have a lot of influence on the world at the time.

Stalin and Mao were communists in name, but they were socialists in practice. They had state-control over all industries and it failed.

I'm not sure if stifling regulation or corporatism is worse. I support everyone getting less regulation. It helps small businesses. Why isn't that an option?

I agree, this is getting stale. Later, n3rd :)

investing in people based on individual actions is great
investing based on group actions and being judged before birth is not
the starting line has to be equal, at least in public services as per the constitution. not the finish line.
why isn't the starting line (as per public services) equal?

im just quoting the rundown of their platform. raising wages had a specific mention. the whole platform seems rather big government. i haven't seen the democratic platform, but i made my case with the republican platform. Large debt, large investment, free market interference by pushing an industry in the name of advancement. this is hands down my win

name some countries that are 1st world and have slaves. your response notably said many countries in general. did you miss by mention of 1st world or was this a conscious choice?

they could not compete, but they both were 3rd world nations within that same generation. that is amazing growth. had they not tried to compete and focused on steady growth... we could have been #3 a long time ago. Their flaws was the fact that from their very inception they were intended to be dictatorships. they were not some socialist failing, they were a socialist lie. whether socialism would work or not, these were not socialist, except in name. Stalin and Mao made themselves kings from day 1. and kings are easy to tease. their families wont starve.

I'm actually going to be abandoning these little chats. they are taking away from life. If you want, start a debate. I plan to start a few on the topic of liberitarianism, including why you should vote left. I think we agree on many social issues. not word choices, but letting weirdos be weirdos, as long as they don't harm anyone. as far as the economy. I know you have a right wing ideal, but the republican party isn't going liberitarian yet, especially not with the trump turn. aren't regulations, applied to all companies in an industry, not better then subsidies for specific companies? one may decrease efficiency, although it will increase consumer confidence, but the other hand picks winners and losers destroying the concept of fair competition and any legitimacy to the market. say no to hand picking winners and losers.

see you in debates!

A nation is its people. When investing in certain subgroups, you have to consider who you are taking money/opportunities from as well :)

I don't know what the higher wages are referring to. Government employees? We don't advocate for paying people less, we advocate for market wages.
I don't see why it matters if it is private-public or not. It is a $2 trillion deal, which is huge. Don't say you haven't heard of it, I provided the link ;)

Again, in what way was the south conservative? What are some small government policies they passed? How did they promote the free market?

I liked that you said "last 1st world bastion of slavery" lol. Ignoring the fact that dozens of other countries still practiced slavery(and still do). America is great for stopping that. It is great for promoting freedom(of methods of self-defense, speech, etc), which another party refuses to do. It has saved a lot of countries. It has done much more good than bad. Can't say that about the Dems :P

The USSR collapsed. They were much weaker than we knew, and had very little money. China only started growing after they began adopting free market policies. FDR prolonged the Great Depression, and SS is bankrupting us. Which libertarian policies have we adopted that are hurting us? We are spending billions more than ever before.

A nation is its people. You have to invest in your people.

Trump is half way done with his term, i haven't heard anything on infrastructure in a year and a half. And when i did it was some public private sponsorship, nothing line the rail roads or the highway, or the Hoover dam.
Your still leaving out 85% including *higher wages*!

Ok. Scratch religious
We still have rural, conservative, small government on the Democrats. And mostly in the south... sound familiar?

America as a whole was the last 1st world bastion of slavery, and the Confederate states fought hard to keep it. By your standards, it is disgusting.
If you want to be specific, you can say it was a party, but wasnt it really all about the states? 😎

I dont support their laws, but a command econony took USSR from 3rd world to super power in a few decades. A HEAVILY controlled market made china the fastest growing economy and currently our only rival. it really depends on how much control the people have, and how much corruption takes control away from them. We became great under FDR. we have faded since embracing liberitarian like policies since the 70s/80s. Still #1, but competitors catching up.

I think that you are neglecting the fact that the vast majority of Americans were religious at that time, so saying that only the Democrats supported "religious voices" is laughably false. I don't know how paying for infrastructure isn't a Republican thing. Trump is talking about a $2 trillion plan right now. https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-trump-2-trillion-infrastructure-plan-cost-funding-problem-2019-4

Higher taxes which paid for higher spending. I don't know if you realize this, but before the 1960s, nearly every president of every political persuasion did everything they could to balance the budget. The only exception was during war time. Yes, he raised taxes because he didn't want to accrue massive debt. Anyone with a triple digit IQ would have raised taxes.

I am not saying that every single issue they believed in is the same as now. I mean, Democrats were the party against illegal immigration not too long ago since they used to care about unions, and union workers didn't want their wages to be undercut. Same with tariffs.

Also, you never proved that Democrats did conservative things, nor did you provide a link with further information.

Give me an exact year for when you are saying the constituencies flipped. Because if you are going to say when segregation ended, I'll ask you: would the entire Republican party flip on everything they believe just so that they could gain a few Deep South States?

America isn't disgusting, the Democrat party is.

They also gave out free farms, paid for a massive infrastructure project, free land for public education, higher taxes, promoted a new industry, and the best kicker: *higher wages*.

At best you found something everyone agrees on to focus on, and willfully ignored 90% of it.
Furthermore the previously noted constituency flips. The Democrat party of then represented conservarive, rural, and religious voices, mostly down south. Sound familiar? Meanwhile the Republicans supported, and implemented, big government, higher wages, "socialism" decades before actual socialism.

The fact that this history is yet another point against you, in your logic. Who gives a ****? I support the policies being spoken today. The name they use is irrelevant. You ignored my analogy with America being such a massive slave nation 100 years ago. Are you saying that continues to make america disgusting today? No offense, even newton searched for alchemic secrets in the bible, but this claim is a really really dumb one. Both logically, and morally.

The private sector has screwed up markets a plenty. Meanwhile governments have done alot of good as well. It all depends on the people and how they execute it.

They gave pensions to soldiers because, exactly like today, we love our veterans. Those soldiers could have been mangled and not been able to hold jobs because they fought for their country. That is a lot different than current times when states like California pay people to be homeless. In times of war, you may need to subsidize railroads and other things because you need to move troops and supplies to win a war. You also need to tax more to pay for that war. Simple financial responsibility right there.

They did not swap constituencies. After segregation was federally outlawed, Deep South states had to choose another large issue they cared about. That would be Federalism, for which they chose the Republican party. No states went to Blue at that time that were historically red.

If you don't blame for the sins of the father, then why are you bothering to discuss swapping constituencies? The fact is, your party has such evil roots, you have to pretend that the parties swapped in order to justify calling us racists today. It is really pathetic. You pretend to be for the common man. So did Andrew Jackson who started your party. You have always been for big government, and that is what defines the parties.

There are limitations to free speech. Don't call for violence or cause a mass panic.

The reason that the invisible hand fails is when government regulations and taxes create inefficiencies in the market.

Democrats want to limit speech. How about we flip it around and see how you feel about it. Republicans gain a majority. They hate socialism, so they ban any speech supporting it. They base this on the fact that socialism has killed over 100 million people historically, so they want to save us from that. Is that okay? No. It should be outright dismissed because the government shouldn't ban what you can say and therefore think.

"The Republican Civil War era program included free homestead farms, a federally subsidized transcontinental railroad, a national banking system, a large national debt, land grants for higher education, a new national banking system, a wartime income tax and permanent high tariffs to promote industrial growth and high wages. By the 1870s, they had adopted as well a hard money system based on the gold standard and fought off efforts to promote inflation through Free Silver.[40] They created the foundations of the modern welfare state through an extensive program of pensions for Union veterans."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

Thats one heck of a progressive platform.
I also pointed out the clear swap of constituencies.
Regardless the argument from the distant past is both stupid and immoral. Here are both examples.
The United states supported slavery, thus the United states is immoral forever. Stupid argument.
Sins of the father. Immoral argument.
And in both cases, an irrelevant argument to the current situation.

Im glad we agree on the problem of money in politics. 1. Idealism does not overrule reality. 2. There are limitations to free speech. 3. Alternative solutions like providing an alternative source of information to ads.

There is a reason supply and demand are economics 101, freshman level beginner knowledge. Even advanced economics often fails to predict the market, due to humans not being homo economicus. The invisible hand is guided by those with influence, it mever was a neutral force of nature. Even without overpowered players exerting undo influence, its fundamental structure can influence its effects, and they can be tweaked. We should have a more focused discussion on this but i disagree with the defeatist stance you have taken.

My point was that although not a majority, the idea has broad support within the Republican party. Perhaps they shouldnt be outright dismissed.

Could you mention a few Republican policies that Southern Democrats supported? They were the same Democrat party unless you are saying FDR supported Republican ideas. Some concrete examples would be more convincing than just calling what I said "stupid" and "cliche".

Money in politics is a problem. I just don't see how you can constitutionally amend it. Laws against freedom of expression are unconstitutional. I support anti-lobbying because that is essentially corruption. However, making films and ads shouldn't really be regulated.

The Invisible Hand is not laughable naivety. It is about how prices and supply of products adjust to meet demand. It is about how complex a market is with millions of buyers and sellers: something that central planners couldn't accomplish.

Not sure about what your point is regarding hate speech. The point is most dems support and most reps are against.

Taxes are very important. They allow small businesses and entrepreneurs to succeed. They incentivize innovation, which is the bedrock of our economy.

Below

Im sorry, this is getting a bit convoluted. Please pick any 2 of those subjects and i will respond to them, but this mess will get us nowhere.

A couple of quick replies. By democratic party do you mean the one that represented rural conservative mostly southerners 100 years ago? Pretty much the republicans of today? This is a stupid argument that is not original. This is just cliche propaganda 1 liners. It may have been called the democratic party, but it was made of Republican constituency.

And were you not in agreement that the influence of money on politics is one of the biggest problems our democracy faces? Abortion i understand, but taxes and regulation being more important then your voice in your government! Bullshit. That isnt for the people, that is for the system. And its incomparable to any offense, real or imagined, from the democrats.

"The market will right itself... invisible hand"
Laughable naivety.

I didn't say banning hate speech was good. I simply pointed out that over 1/3rd of republicans also supported the idea. Which lead me to believe the question in the poll might be questionable. The claim that we are the only 1st world country where it isnt banned gave me pause for thought as well.
Your exaggerated and presumptive reaction made me feel this conversation isnt going to go anywhere unless i call you out like this.

Could you provide a study that proves firearms make us less safe? I have noticed that almost all gun crimes are committed by gangs. If you ban guns, they will still illegally import them!

Having health insurance is typically a good thing. However, I don't see how forcing people to get any commodity is a good idea. Obama tried and failed to do it. I don't see how rich people advertising influences my beliefs. I don't care how much Dems spend, I believe in limited government. I'm not some sheep that changes my mind based on how many advertisements I see on TV. Are you saying that most people are?

They likely "barely pay it lip service" because it is an issue that is less important to their base than say.... reducing taxes, regulations, limiting abortion, etc?

Tell me why banning hate speech is a good idea. Can you provide any quantifiable claim as to how it is harmful? It is a good thing that we are the last developed nation to not have banned it. We promote freedom here in the US, not partisan banning of speech(and therefore ideas).

Lmao, it is a treat talking to you. Fredo's freak out was a joke because I didn't hear about the tranny freak out you mentioned. Freedom of speech is muy bien.

No righty calls for race wars. It seems like just yesterday that Democrats were segregating schools and running the KKK.....

They accused him of gang rape. No denying that. He wasn't sent to trial because the FBI couldn't find enough evidence to send it to trial.

It wasn't a ruling that only favored "rich people". It was turning over a rule that only applied to corporations concerning speech that denigrades a different candidate close to an election. I can do it. You can do it, too.

The raising money point was referring to your party having lots of donors. Donors that will want a return on their investment. I don't believe Obama got money out of politics when he was president for eight years. He owned Congress for at least half of that.

The market will right itself. It is called the invisible hand. Point to a market failure, and the government was likely involved. It is so naive to think that wealth redistribution is a good idea. Riddle me this, if Republicans are the party of the wealthy few, then why do BLUE states have the highest concentration of millionaires? https://www.financial-planning.com/slideshow/blue-states-vs-red-states-which-has-the-most-millionaires
Why do you also have such high homelessness rates? https://www.statista.com/statistics/727847/homelessness-rate-in-the-us-by-state/

Gee, with all those billionaires and homeless people in BLUE states, it is hard to believe much of what you are saying.

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/18253609/hr-1-pelosi-house-democrats-anti-corruption-mcconnell

Democratic bill that forces disclosure of annonimous money pumped into our politics. Republicans in senate refuse to even consider it for a vote.

Getting money out of politics is a central policy of nearly every democratic candidate, republicans barely even pay it lip service.

And finally, as to your poll about banning hate speech. Yes 51% of dems support it, but so do 37% of repubs. It also mentions we are the only developed nation to not have banned it. Im curious as to the exact for of the question and what they mean by hate speech. Remember, the devil is in the details, and simplified 1 liners are probably propaganda.

Those are some very peculiar freedoms. Taxation is a fact of every nation in history. What is theft is how main street suffered most from the recession, but wages were stagnant throughout the recovery as the markets boomed. You believe the market will right itself without bias if left alone, that is naive. The market is a human creation and it is guided by human hands. Whether those hands belong to the nation as a whole, or just the wealthy few is the left right debate. Your essentially repeating the false logic of wealthy peoppe looking out for themselves at your expense. Guns for protection is another line moneyed interests are pushing on you. Study after study show guns make you less safe. No, forcing people to have health insurance doesnt take away nearly as much power from citizens as declaring that money = speech. Not even close. Having health insurance is a good thing. Having wealthy people steal the ear of your representatives is a disaster that could be an existential threat to our democracy. All of your oversimplified 1 liner complaints pale in comparison to the promotion of moneyed interests.

Whats wrong with cuomo's freakout? What does that say about policy? Is he not allowed to express anger or frustration? Are you for freedom expression or against it? Do you believe free speech is a one way street?

I dont know who is saying what about republicans in general. Lets look at the numbers. There are 300 million people in the usa, and they are more or less evenly split between right, left, and independents. That leaves 100million people on either side of our comparison. Yes there will be idiots on both sides that say stupid shit on a blog or YouTube. They are not "the left". For every anecdotal example you show me of a lefty saying all republicans are racist i will show you a clip of a righty calling for a race war, or declaring something equally general about all lefties. This claims of things "you guys said was true about republicans" are fake. At best exaggerating anecdotes, but the best propganda bases itself on distorted truths.

I dont think they accused him of gang rape, nor was he held for trial. They were questioning his moral character as a judge of the supreme court. I didnt follow the accusations much, but his performance in the congressional hearing was really bad. I questioned his competency, not his character.

Citizens United was decided along party lines with the much praised right wing judges unanimously supporting it. the result was that money=speech and thus wealthy people can "speak" alot more then the rest of us. Whether it was anti hillary or whoever, it was a very bad result for the people. I will look for other bills linked to lawmakers as well, however the argument for it is a so called "cry for freedom", a freedom for the few that takes away the voice of many in their own government.

How much they raise and spend is a red herring. Money in necessary to run and win elections as per the current set up. The question what they do when they get into power, stop the money, or increase its influence.

I don't know what trans guy freak out video you are referring to. However... I did see Fredo, I mean Chris Cuomo, freak out.

If half of what you guys said was true about Republicans, I wouldn't like them, either. If Brett Kavanaugh was actually a gang rapists and that whole thing wasn't made up, I would probably be upset he is on the Supreme Court.

I looked at Citizens United. It looked to be an issue about a company that had an anti-Hillary movie. It went to the Supreme Court, which found it constitutional for them to use their freedom of expression. So...

Also, from 2008-2018, the Dems raised and spent more money than Reps.

You want to talk about limiting the power of the people, let us talk about you restricting their freedoms. When you steal their income, regulate what they can and cannot buy, and control what you can say, how is that not limiting the power of citizens? What about limiting what gun that parents wish to defend their family with/women protect themselves with?

51% of Dems support criminalizing hate speech believe it or not https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/05/20/hate-speech

I have a feeling our dispute will be based more on definitions rather than policy, but i shall leave that to the debate.

My argument will simply be neither the republican or the democratic party implements left wing policy both are either centrist to center right.. to call democratic keynesian policy left wing is slightly silly

I would be against the democratic party if i believed half the propaganda right wing sites spread about it. Unfortunately, blatant lies and anecdotal claims are not very convincing. I would reevaluate your opinion of democrats based less off of claims from right wing sites and anecdotal idiots on the street, like that trans guy making a freakout in a video. Idiots exist on both sides, no prominent democrat promotes mandating/policing language, although individuals do have the right to whine in public (free speech).

Your very first point about lobbying and the influence of money is something i STRONGLY agree with. I consider it the primary thing wrong with our nation, and eliminating it will ease the partisan divide and make all other solutions easier. Unfortunately i blame the right for this problem, and although Democrats play the money game just as much, it is the Republicans that pass the laws allowing that in spite of democratic opposition. For example, citizens united was passed and supported by republicans along party lines. The republican corruption is not based off individual corrupt politicians, but an organized corrupt platform with the goal of limiting the power of most average people. I consider that treason.

The policies that lead to blue states to be economic successes and red states to essentially require federal welfare.

Also the policies that resulted in consistently better economic performance under democratic presidents vs republican presidents. I know a president has limited effect, but if there is a consistent pattern across numerous presidencies, it makes for a stronger point.

Please, accept the debate if you are interested. All evidence will be presented.

Which left-wing policies exactly do you want to use for reference, if it's not Hillary's policies?

I don't necessarily love either party. I just really hate what Democrats stand for and what they do. I sometimes like what Republicans do. I almost never like what Democrats do. You can read my bio to see if any value you will mention would tick with me.

@bmdrocks Im talking about reality. Whether its liberitarian, conservative, republican, i am talking about the policies they actually pass in your name. If you feel they dont match up with your version of right wing, why vote for them? And perhaps this would be my opportunity to win you over if you disagree with what the right pass (i do too).

@christen im sure hillary clintons policies are similar to general left wing policies (relatively higher taxes, stronger regulations, more public investment, less/more transparent money in politics). However judging her policies that were never implemented will be speculation, i would prefer to look at the objective effects of previous policies.

@policesheep socialists for small business?!? Your gonna make the right wingers' heads explode!

So... are you referring to actual right-wing ideas and left-wing ideas or just what the parties do? Because your source in the last debate seemed to be all about parties.

Do you want to use Hillary Clinton's policies when referencing left-wing policies? https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Do you want to use Trump's accomplishments when referencing right-wing policies? http://www.magapill.com/

In the UK, the Conservative Party is seen as the party of big business and the Labour (Socialist) Party is seen as the party of small business and trade unions.