CreateDebate


Debate Info

61
52
YES NO
Debate Score:113
Arguments:75
Total Votes:133
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (40)
 
 NO (35)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11165) pic



Is the future going to be the United Socialist States of America?

Is America Doomed?

YES

Side Score: 61
VS.

NO

Side Score: 52
3 points

Would we ever reach the economic goal of most Socialists? Practically impossible. Big business has far too much of an influence in this country, and the big business within this country has far too much of an influence around the entire world. America's Capitalism has globalized. It's almost impossible for the US government to take full control of the larger corporations. So I don't think that will ever happen (government control over all business is part of Socialism).

Instead, what we have is the economics of not Socialists, but Fascists. Government heavily regulates what business does, but still allows private property. You can own your shit, but government can tell you what to do with it. This is why we have prohibition, heavy sin tax, entitlement programs, etc. Socialism? To a Capitalist, very, but to a Communist, not enough.

America is far more Socialist than Capitalist, but it's still not Socialist (and never will be, so long as globalized Capitalism maintains its order around the world).

Actually, globalization and the Internet can be the best ways to maintain the Capitalist and Free Market system. While the US government itself becomes more socialized, the things it can't control (overseas and internet) becomes more powerful (in the sense that more and more people have access to it's free trade benefits).

Will we continue to feel the sting of the Fascist, third way economical system that the US government continues to push? Of course. Products are still regulated and taxation seems to expand it's boundaries. but with this constant pushing of a Mixed economy, people crave the free market more and more (which is what gives the Internet and Globalized Market so much strength). As unregulated Capitalism once created fear for a Communist revolution, socialized programs are creating a Capitalist revolution (one that is very hard to stop).

Side: yes

Would we ever reach the economic goal of most Socialists?

No, because eventually socialists would run out of other's people money ;)

Side: yes
1 point

Well said .

Side: yes
2 points

I sure hope so. Maybe then everyone would stop complaining about this unfounded fear and we can get on to the real issues like the war.

Side: yes
2 points

Is America Doomed?

America is doomed by stupidity more than anything, and if the tea party and birther movements are indicative of anything, it's that America is doomed to become the "United Stupid States of America."

Side: yes
LeoKnows(6) Disputed
0 points

I'm part of the Tea Party movement and I consider myself far from stupid.

So what is your solution Brainiac?

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

I'm part of the Tea Party movement and I consider myself far from stupid.

I'm still waiting for the tea party movement to have more than lofty ideas supported by vague rhetoric that appeals to a majority without stating a clear purpose. It has the hallmarks of a movement backed by wealthy political entrepreneurs who are looking to cash in on political unrest that has been mounting over the last decade.

So what is your solution Brainiac?

Solution to what? Stupidity? That's simple, actually. Start taxing churches, banning religious and corporate funding of political campaigns, and we should start to see our country move forward for a change. They've become a great burden on our society, religious groups have been meddling with our children's education for over a century, trying to censor science and history and corporations impede progress at every opportunity when it comes to reducing their profits, through lobbying and control of mass media.

The economy and government programs? Maybe you were asking about that? The trouble would seem to be centering an economy around a stock market, meaning that we're always on a knife's edge with respect to booms and depressions. Regulations are supposed to help us with this, but there might be something better we just haven't considered yet. Not that we'll ever change this. Government programs are intended to help you and I, but we can't keep fighting wars, spending a major chunk of our GDP on military, AND have social programs that take care of us. Plus, the corporate bailouts weren't a good idea at this time. We're in tremendous debt because of Reagan's reduction of regulations, plus a decade of really bad leadership (by mister "we need to stay in war" Dubya) and a depression followed by bailouts.

Side: yes

Social Programs are invading our country already, and it is a form of socialism. It is the redistribution of wealth.

Medicare

Medicaid

Social Security

Public Housing

Labor Law

Mandatory Health Insurance

Substance abuse prevention

OBAMA Land
Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

You forgot to add:

Building, street and public maintenance

Public Schools

Foodstamps

Welfare

Minimum wage

Unions

Food safety and sanitation laws

Medical safety and standards regulation

FDA laws concerning drugs

There are probably others I could list. But of course what you really forgot is what socialism is.

You seem to have bought into the lie that regulation and government programs is socialism. Socialism is about government ownership of business.

However I should still hope that our nation does become socialist, as it stands the wealthy have been raping the working class for centuries.

Side: No
2 points

Wrong. Public schools, buildings and street and pubic maintenance is part of infrastructure.

Food stamps, welfare, indeed I forgot.

As for Socialism, time to get of the 19th and 20th Century because the definition of Socialism is changing, and Milton Friedman agrees. Also he agrees to

ABOLISH THE FED.

Milton
Side: yes
1 point

XD lol. I think that a well thought out mix of socialism and capitalism that gives incentive for working hard, but still takes care of the poor, weak, and disabled (sadly lazy people also) is what America is headed towards which I for one am thankful for.

Side: No
RandyBruce(3) Disputed
1 point

"However I should still hope that our nation does become socialist, as it stands the wealthy have been raping the working class for centuries."

Be carefull what you wish for - socialism is not the answer. Plus, the poor will always be "raped" either by the rich or by rich politicians. The government never keeps their promises and they can never take care you. But I see people today wanting their butts wiped because they can't do it themselves. Remember - If you have everything handed to you then you stay like a child and never become an adult and never learn how to.

Side: No

50% of the United States economy is now consumed by government spending, which means federal government is 25% while the state and local government is 15% plus 10% in regulatory fines and fees.

Side: YES

This argument has always been one of the stupidest ones that I hear from people on the right. What Obama is advocating is not socialism. Are there people on the far left who want socialism? Probably, but they are in the vast minority, and I think we can all agree that they have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to economics, and will never gain a prominent voice in American politics because we aren't retarded.

As someone who has supported Obama along with many of his policies, and also realizes how bad socialism it annoys me when people say he is socialist, because that is simply not the case.

What Obama does advocate for is Keynsian counter-cyclical fiscal policy. This means that the government has an active role in preventing buisness cycles (booms and busts) from hurting our economy. The fact that people ignore though is that nearly every U.S. politician feels the same way. The only difference is how they implement these policies. People on the right tend to focus on supply side economics (usually involving tax cuts) and people on the left tend to focus on demand side economics (running a budget deficit when the economy is doing poorly like Obama is doing now, or running a surplus when the economy is doing well like Clinton did at the end of his second term). All of it is working toward the same goal, it just involves different methods.

What is important to note about this is that: none of this is socialism!

The more people use that term the dumber this debate gets because we can't argue rationally about how to most effectively run the government.

Side: No
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
2 points

This argument has always been one of the stupidest ones that I hear from people on the right.

But Prayer Fails is a left leaning Libertarian... so it's not just the stupidest argument that you hear from people on the right... but also from the left.

Side: yes
0 points

Economically Prayer Fails is very conservative, and is constantly bashing liberals.

This debate is about economics not social policy and therefore I am comfortable with my statement.

(Also, for the record I consider myself an economic moderate, not that I guess the term really has any meaning).

Side: No
2 points

1. Keynesian Economics-Have you ever read "The Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. If you did, you would known that even in his book, Keynes contemplates the effectiveness of demand side economics citing the creation of inflation through lower interest rates and how it is increases nominal wages but detrimental to real wages where in the long run, it actually hurts the poor more than help.

2. Business Cycles- As previously discussed, are byproducts of central banks. Central banks are the sole reason for the business cycle, that being booms and busts.

Side: yes
downvote(53) Disputed
1 point

2. Business cycles can by caused by a number of things, but I fail to see how the Central Bank is one of them. Inflation caused by speculative buying, and followed by a price correction can have the effect of causing a boom followed by a bust. The issue with the bust is that a downward spiral occurs in which people get laid off, and so there are less people spending money, so businesses make less money so more people get laid off. In addition, sticky wages make it difficult, if not impossible for the problem to correct itself naturally.

1. This is where the government must step in and spend money. While it is true that this excess spending will cause inflation in the long run, in the short run it will allow more people to have jobs, and thus be able to spend more. This increased spending will allow businesses to hire more workers and allow the economy to return to full output. Full output means both full employment and a return to the way things were before the bust. All inflation does is raise the price level, no one is actually hurt and the economy is no longer depressed. In other words the poor are helped, not hurt.

Side: No
1 point

A small amount of inflation doesn't hurt the poor, and allows prices to adjust. The goal is to get the nation back to full output. If we get back to the natural rate of unemployment and we are producing just as much as we were before the inflation occurs, what does it matter that there is an increase in the price level?

Output = Real income. Inflation doesn't factor in.

I don't remember you explaining at all how business cycles are caused by central banks. How about this most recent recession, how was that caused by the central bank?

Side: No
2 points

"Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or direct worker ownership and control of the means of production and allocation of resources."

While the government does exert some control over some means of production and does engage in a small amount of wealth redistribution, no case has been made that shows that this will eventually result in direct worker ownership and control of society's means of production and allocation of resources. When heirs and heiresses start having to actually work for a living instead of being born into wealth, the terrified reactionaries might have a case. Until then, they'll have to accept that they don't know jack shit about what socialism actually is.

Side: No
1 point

No, the US goverment needs private industry's money and it has never worked.

Side: No
1 point

No, and frankly I find the argument ridiculous. The pervasiveness of sound bytes and buzzwords has only managed to further degrade any productive political discourse we may have once otherwise had. Politics is getting more juvenile every passing year. Most politicians know what "socialism" means and despite that they use it inappropriately to demonize opposing concepts, but many regular people don't have a full understanding of what socialism is they just know that .....socialism bad.

Side: No