CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Democrats themselves? Yes, it's TOWARDS Socialism. I don't think, however, that they mean to go all the way.
I am a Progressive. But my idea of progress is lowering the power of government, cutting spending, and taking away laws that inhibit civil rights. In some ways, my idea of Progress is Regressing all the way back to the birth of the United States. I say only some ways, of course, because one part of civil rights is NOT having slavery.
Hold on there sport. No need to get hostile. Those were just a few more things I didn't take into consideration. I said we could get back to some roots, not all.
The economic situation has allowed the historically proven inadequate theory of capitalist anarchy to again take hold. Social programs are the only things which have saved the US from a second great depression, yet despite social programs being the medicine, Prayerfails and a group of non-politicials have taken it as opportunity to espouse radical anti-government views.
Representative governments are not inherently evil. Democrats are one side of an ongoing debate. Labeling them as the same party as Nazi's and the Soviet Union is not helpful to the debate. If Democrats had 90% of the government instead of 55%, it still would lead to neither socialism nor communism.
If you want to label a legitimate half of government, with just as much democratic, voted-for right to determining the course of our government, as some demon from the past, then I will continue to point out in no uncertain terms the error of your thought process.
If you want to rethink the premise of the debate, and talk about real issues, I'll be happy to take you seriously.
While the Great Depression was horrible, it can't really be said that it goes ONLY to Capitalism. Part of Capitalism is trial and error. Without government in the way, the Stock Market was able to come into place in the first place. It started a new trend of investment which was able to cause much economical advancement. Without the Stock Market, we wouldn't have hardly any of the shit we have now. The problem with the Stock Market and Crediting, however, came from it being very new. No one, including the government (captain hindsight) new just how bad investment and credit could really get. There may have been some people who disliked the idea of investment all together, but the Great Depression (to even most experts back then) was practically unpredictable.
What's good about the Great Depression for current times, however, is that we know just how insane investment and credit can get. Harsh government regulation, however, doesn't stop another Recession from coming. In fact, government oversight is part of what caused our current Recession. The Housing Bubble, itself, had many issues from people being people, but the government itself (in trying to help poor people) encouraged bad loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back. These major banks (which come more from Corporatism than Capitalism) would not have made nearly as many investments in poor people as they did were it not for government encouragement. As well, it was government that bailed out failing businesses because they felt that it would cause a major economic meltdown if they didn't. This encourages large businesses to become even larger and have too much power. Without government interference, these businesses wouldn't be so large and would not need to be bailed out in the first place. As well, with the whole Recession problem (caused in part by government) it gives government enough excuse to become even more powerful. Then, what you see is larger government and larger corporations (supported by the large government). In response, we do see extremist Libertarian economic views growing on the right (luckily, though, this encourages libertarianism in general, causing Conservatives to be less of moralfags) which, yes, can be anarchic. However, this should not hide the fact that big government is still bad.
As I stated (and I know you ignored it to go after the easy target, Hallow), I want to decrease the size of government, cut spending, and promote civil rights. Through all of this, we would be able to reduce the size of Corporations which are "too big to fail". Also, let them fail. While it's a scary concept, it makes our market become more balanced in the long run. Analogies are gay, but think of it as an untapped forest. Sure, there will be wild fires, but it's only to keep the forest at a decent size. Fires started by outside sources, however, are what actually destroys the forest completely.
Well, I'm not going to argue there is any apparent flaw in your logic.
However, how would you propose stopping businesses, which I agree have become entirely "too big" once they are "too big to fail", if not through government oversite.
I'm not saying government does a good job of ensuring this does not happen, in fact they do a piss poor job. But they do something at least.
What entity would stop for instance monopolies (again not that they don't exist) if not government? I certainly can't. I don't know any individual or even group who can stop say Bechtel, from doing whatever wherever whenever they want if there is not oversite.
It is too easy in an open market (as in publically traded companies), for those at the top to take advantage of the many, if there is not oversite.
Perhaps abandon the open market? That would work, but now you eliminate a lot of entrepreneurship.
I'm not saying end all government responsibility. Just make it so that government doesn't really have that much power.
sure, monopolies are bad. We all know that. But monopolies currently existing are supported by government, not through the free market. Oligopolies are formed, at most, through free market means. and sure, monopolies MAY form, eventually, but it's better if they are at the hands of the market instead of the hands of the government.
The idea of the open market is that if the company is taking advantage of your money, don't buy their stocks. Monopolies occur in one way or another and the free market allows competition to those monopolies. And who's to say they're always bad? If they are bad, will people work for them? probably not. Also, its waaaayyyyy more easy for the government to take advantage of people in the form of Socialsim. People often forget that a government is made up of people and works for the people, however, when government is giving the rights and taking them and distributing the money and regulating the business, that alone is giving them enough power to manipulate.
The idea of the open market is that if the company is taking advantage of your money, don't buy their stocks
Sure, ideally. But that's not how it works in reality. Do you have mutual funds? Do you have retirement? If you do, you have stocks. Which companies are these invested in?
You have no idea, and as the recent bank bancrupcies show, giant corporations will gamble with anyone's retirement if it means they get a big bonus at the end of the year. This is exactly what has been happening.
Credit cards are allowed to hide fees in the fine print, then increase your rates from 3% to 20% with no warning - unless government regulates.
Housing Lenders are allowed to increase mortgages based on nothing but a desire to pad their portfolio, leaving people without a home practically overnight - unless government regulates it.
Food manufacturers can use any chemicals they like if it means their meat or veggies can stay on the shelves longer. If some people die, hey, it's an LCC, no one is to blame. CEO's cash out, change the name of the company, and do some marketing - unless government regulates our food.
Government has to regulate large business, otherwise we become a nation of have and have-nots like India or something.
"Social programs" are the premise of Socialism. Hence the name.
Failure is needed for progress, otherwise people stop working toward a better life and will put forth the minimum amount of effort to get the maximum benefits. (Like they are doing now) Why are we so afraid of failure? It gives motivation.
I'm not the one who downvoted you, but what proof do you have people now are putting forth minimum effort?
On average now, people work longer hours for less money than they did only 2 decades ago. You can actually look these numbers up. If anything the middle class is woking harder for less, certainly not being lazy. I know few in the service industry (for example since I live in Vegas) today who do not need at least two incomes, and sometimes more, simply to raise a family. Four decades ago one could be middle class with a single family income, reaching no higher than lower level management.
Yet on the flip side of the coin, you will find those in the top 2%, these past 4 or 5 years of this recession, have actually increased their income, wilst working less and obviously as the economy indicates, doing little to move their corporations forward.
Yet you want to blame the peasants.
This shows a lack of insite. Think about what you're saying, look up some statistics. Every economic indicator shows that even if every unemployed person sold their soul for a job, only less than a percent would find one available to them right now. And worse, those working for minimum wage at a horrid job more than 40 hours a week, who do not smoke, gamble, drink, or rent DVDs, would still find their account short when it is time to pay the bills.
The problem is not how hard Americans are willing to work, it is a lack of jobs, and a lack of pay at many of the jobs available.
Part of the equation you're forgetting is the value of our money. Our money has been, due to spending (social programs, government intrusion) devalued to the point that inflation is taking place. In a recession like this (I'm not an economist, just using common sense) when government gets involved by printing money, spending tax dollars through social programs, and creating jobs (which it can't do), the currency is devalued. The Federal Reserve recently monetized 600,000,000, 000 dollars worth of our debt. That is they printed 600,000,000, 000 dollars of paper. Nothing more. That means our dollars are worth that much less, meaning those people you're talking about have to pay more for the things they need to live becuase its becoming more expensive for the manufacturers to produce their goods. The more paper you have in the system with nothing backing it, the less its worth.
The top 2% you're talking about are job creators. A fact overlooked by most people. Another factor you are forgetting is that by government trying to institute more taxes on them, they do not want to hire because they might have to pay more. A reason that our currency is not worth anything is because government has created more and more jobs, therefore taking more and more people out of the system. People can't afford to pay because they can't afford their taxes because government has to pay their workers. When the government says its creating jobs, it isn't. Jobs belong to the private sector. Originally, do you think there was such a thing as federal jobs?
The top 2% has enough income to create jobs if they like. The economy is not driven by how much a business is willing to pay, it is driven by consumers. If there are consumers for a product, and a business does not have the capital, they will borrow.
Top down economics does not work. This 2% has seen an increase in income over the last decade. If they created jobs based on their income, they would have. Meanwhile, we have massive debt that is effecting the worth of our dollar, which is effecting consumer spending. If consumers cannot spend, not the richest person in the world is going to invest in business.
We've been through this twice now, once in the 80's, and again during Bush's term. Neither time has given those with the most more, resulted in jobs. We have an example of taxing the 2% percent at 42% instead of 39% - it was the 90's, and we created more jobs in the 90's than in any time in our history.
Your theory does not hold up to either logic or real life example.
No infastructure? In our government? Please explain.
Mining towns couldn't enslave anyone. If you worked in the mining town and you thought your wage was too low you could leave. No one is forcing you to stay.
Slavery was not anywhere in our constitution.
Also explain the power concentrated to those who own land.
1. Government is in charge of infrastructure, and is the only entity in any society which can handle infrastructure.
2. No, they couldn't leave these mining towns. They owned the homes and the stores and they charged more than miners made, so if they left, they would be arrested for owing a debt. This is what business does when left to its own devices, as we've seen historically in this one of many examples.
3. But when the country was founded, there was slavery, and it was government and only government which was able to end it.
4. One of these Tea party revisionists gave a speech saying it may be a good idea to go back to only allowing land owners a say in government. This is typical of your ilk.
The birth of our country did not support slavery. Frederick Douglass concluded after reading our Constitution that it was an anti slavery document. The 3/5th clause was in regards to population vs. congressmen and not people. Our country HAS to get back to its principles and totally away from progressive ideals. Our founders understood that straying from our constitution would lead to our demise which has come in the form of progressivism. And they do wish to go all the way, Socialism and Communism are praised in schools. Capitalism is demonzed in all the text books.
Our country HAS to get back to its principles and totally away from progressive ideals.
{laughs}
And what "principals" our nation needs to get back to seems to vary depending on who I ask. Unsurprisingly people tend to think their ideals best represent our founding principals, which is strange considering people who hold very different often contrary views nearly all believe this. They can't all be right, can they? Are you you one of these befuddled fools? Looks like it.
The constitutional framers didn't have much to say about Progressivism, mostly because it didn't yet exist. Although some may point out that the American progressive movement gave women the right to vote, a right they should have been granted from the very beginning. So is it possible that the founders didn't believe in women's rights? If they did they didn't do very much to ensure those rights when they wrote the constitution.
Sometimes people will forget that although the founding fathers were very intelligent men, revolutionary for their time, they had their share of flaws including those instilled upon their from socio-economic institutions of the time. Several of the founding fathers owned slaves. This is history. The founding fathers were smart, but they were not prophets, they could not predict future events. This is why they made the constitution a "living document\" that could change and adapt to a changing world.
This idealistic past is perhaps not as idealistic as you might want to think.
The constitution is only a living document to the extent that it can be ammended according to changing times, but not totally changed or even disregarded. Progressives seek to either totally change or disregard. The proccess by which the constitution should even be ammended ensures that all ideas are taken into account and the best are voted on and become the ammendments. The framers were extremely intelligent and well read, of course not prophets. Their principles, however, are clearly defined in the constitution and not subject to "who [you] ask". Women were not granted the right to vote simply because during that time women were not a part of politics. However, because the constitution due to its framing could be ammended, women were eventually granted the right to vote. It was not common practice for women to be involved in politics during their time.
Also, the founders warned not against progressivism, but against what they did know about which was tyrannical, overpowered governments (today has become progressivist ideals). They formed our constitution after realizing that anarchy (too little government, articles of confederation) and tyranny (Brittish government) are the two worst forms of government. They wanted to find a balance and gave the constitution as much lead-way to ensure the balance be kept so as to avoid disregarding it and falling to tyranny and anarchy. (suggested reading: the 5000 year leap). They understood that the nation could only be upheld as long as the basic things that they formed the constitution around were upheld. Our constitution is not perfect, but as I said, its principles are clear.
In addition, not all of the founders saw eye to eye on everything, and they made sure all their ideas were heavily debated before an idea was put in the constitution. Originally States submitted something like 32 ammendements to the constitution, of which 10 were kept (the bill of rights).
some founders did own slaves, but that is not to say that the whole constitution was for slavery. Many founders did not believe in slavery. There is nowhere in the original document that either allows or doesn't allow slavery.
Couldn't agree more. And, some might not want to hear this, things like the displacement of Indians (Andrew Jackson), Asian internment camps (Herbert Hoover?) and even racism in government (Hoover as well) was supported by...the progressives and democrats. I would love to know where the idea that people who believe in the constitution are racists, sexists and whatever ists people come up with. I believe in the crazy idea that freedom is the best policy and that the United States was established to protect just that.
I wish someone would pass a law banning anything anti-capitalist including communism and socialism because Obama is scaring the crap out of me right now and people were scared during the cold war too. Democrats are complete morons even the ones who don't support socialism.
I wish someone would pass a law banning anything anti-capitalist including communism and socialism because Obama is scaring the crap out of me right now and people were scared during the cold war too. Democrats are complete morons even the ones who don't support socialism.
I think that Democrats tend to support more socialist policies, but none of them would go all the way to communism. None of them have the guts. It would ruin their political career.
I agree with the arguments on the right side of this page that say some Democrats only support some parts of socialism. For the majority of the Democrats, that's probably true, but those that have the most power and influence, it's obvious what they believe because they've been pushing in the direction of total socialism step by step and they've been pushing hard, either taking all opposition out of the way or assimilating it's loyalty. It's not for no reason that only one major news network in all of the United States still doesn't spin things towards the left. Our educational system seems to produce so many more liberals these days. Think about it, Democrats dominate the arena of education and the text books that are written.
The point I'm trying to make is this, it doesn't matter that most Democrats and liberals are not all about total socialism, the fact is, they're still moving in that direction, and seeing how utterly successful Democrats and their media have been at convincing most of liberal America, literally, to believe any ridiculous thing, like the common expense of a dress worn at an RNC, who freaking cares, leads me to believe that when the time comes, most lower-level Democrats and most of liberal America will still support them.
I mean look at what's happening today. Liberals still back Obama and the Congressional Democrats like never before. Democrats have been at the seat of financial power in this nation for 2 years before Bush left office, yet none of the blame for this economic fiasco is laid upon them by liberal America. Democrats had unchallenged power over this nation for an entire year after Bush left office in both the financial and executive arenas. And for a year after that, republicans only had a single seat in the Senate with which they could only filibuster to stop legislation they didn't agree with, and only if they all agreed would they even be capable of filibustering. Now, for this last year, Republicans have only dominated one half of the financial arm of Government, the House.
In these three years, the first where Democrats had unchallenged control, they proceeded to pass a massive, unprecedented borrowing of money, of which, they have nothing but exaggerated numbers that don't even pass the declining numbers. In the second year, Democrats were about to pass a universal health care bill that was so bad, that it was not changed because of Republican opposition, because Republican opposition did not even matter at that time.
It was changed because of pro-life Democrats in Congress that threatened to side with Republicans if public funds could be used for abortion. After some more hashing, Obama was able to pass the bill on to the House, but again, pro-life Democrats were having difficulty accepting it. Then the MA senator came onto the scene, and finally Republicans could filibuster. However, Obama got the bill attached to a Budget bill so that it would not have to go back to the Senate and be threatened by a Republican filibuster, but still pro-life Democrats were not satisfied. Obama appeased them with an executive order that has questionable power to actually be enforced, and they got that $trillion health care bill attached to that budget bill so that the changes would not have to go back to the Senate for approval.
These were the most damaging things to our economy during these three years, and Republicans had nothing, whatsoever, to do with them. In fact, Republicans called out time and time again how damaging they would be to our nation, and in fact not only produced an alternative to the costly Obama health care bill, but to every single stimulus, to every single borrowing bill the Democrats passed. What's more is that those Republican alternatives focused on job creation and considerably less than even $100 billion, much less $700+ billion that the Democrats passed as they ignored Republicans.
Yet despite all of this, which was reported in the news all throughout, liberal America blames Republicans, one because they blame only Bush despite the fact that Democrats controlled Congress in 2006 and presided over our financial arm of government when the decline started that eventually resulted in a collapse by two very loyally Democrat-supporting companies that conveniently caused our recession just in time for elections.
Despite the fact that Republicans have been against and provided alternatives, and even warned us that we'd go through all we're going through now, liberal America still thinks that it's the Republicans fault for resisting Obama and not working across party lines. Well, Republicans haven't had any power, working across party lines for them would have meant to vote with Democrats on things they did not, at all, think was right for this nation. Apparently, they were right.
So, I say, that regardless of what the majority of liberal America believes today about socialism doesn't matter because when the time comes, they will be convinced by their leaders and liberal-loyal media to support their leaders as we are led into complete socialism.
I can't help it that liberals are so easily convinced. it's not Conservative America's fault that liberals won't think things through before they throw their support behind someone or something.
I mean look at Occupy Wallstreet for crying out loud, a bunch of liberals crying out against big business, just now, because recently, they were told by their leaders that big business was to blame, why, because they're greedy. That's all, and liberals take to the streets all around America in protest to capitalism.
The exaggerated numbers themselves, forgetting the lack of tangible evidence, prove that Obama's borrowing of massive amounts of money did nothing, were dismal failures.
But does that matter to liberal America, no, because they were told big business, greedy, protest, scream, yell, big business, greedy. It's like liberal America has forgotten what it means to have a rational thought for themselves. A nice punchline and a statement that lines up with their baseless preconceived notions, lie or half truth as it may be, and you can literally convince a liberal of anything.
And here's the 2nd most sad part of all of this. Not only do liberals see themselves as the most open-minded and intelligent in society, but they see all who disagree with them as lesser stupid people who need to be controlled so that they don't go blowing up things or starting fires and burning books. And it's because of this arrogance, that they are so easily manipulated, and so easily convinced not to listen to any arguments that would go against their preconceived notions.
You want to know what the most sad part of all of this is:
If liberals actually got all that they wanted, all their leaders were in absolute control of their governments, we went entirely over to socialism, and redistribution of wealth reigned supreme, they'd still end up losing. And you know why? Because, when governments have that kind of power over their people, it's only a matter of time before a dictator will usurp their rights and seek to control them for his/her own ambitions.
It's sad because liberals look at big business as rich, greedy, and using their money to corrupt politicians and politics. What's really sad here is that their answer, the one answer they will fight for, possibly even give their lives for, is to give all of that money that they believe has so corrupted big businesses solely and entirely to those who have the sole power over law.
Let me spell this concept out for the sake of liberals. The common liberal ideal is to take all of the control over the money away from those who are forced to influence others to introduce laws on their behalf and give it's control entirely into the hands of those that actually make the laws. You think corruption is bad now, well wait until those who make the law also control all of the money, as they see fit, then you'll truly see corruption.
This is why I say that even if liberals actually won all they wanted, they have still lost because they gave government unprecedented control over them. Only now, instead of a king-subject relationship where a king always knew that his life depended upon his nobility willing to tolerate him, we'll have a monarchy that's called a Republic, an autocracy that's called a Democracy, and the kings and queens who run it all don't even have to worry about other royalty killing them in their sleep when they screw their nations for their own gain.
Democrats...Communists...Socialists, pretty much interchangeable terms. It's like comparing grapefruit to oranges. Who gives a fuck about the details, they are all anti-freedom sacks of shit. Republicans suck almost as badly, but not quite.
No, they're not. They're just fooled, like many many more of us would be if we didn't have the failures like Nazi Germany, Communism, and socialism to learn from.
It's just that liberal America has been told by everyone around them to blame the wrong things, to hate certain people, to despise those that earned their place and success in society.
I only refute this because it is presented as a blanket statement and I do not believe it refers to all Dems.
Some aim for socialism. Many wish to integrate socialism into the capitalist system to varying degrees but do not want to go all the way. I believe some support socialist ideas without actively realizing it. And I personally know a few who are completely opposed to socialism.
I do not think you can say that all Democrats are trying to progress towards socialism and communism, although it is more common on that side of the aisle than on the right.
Heh. I will assume that since you supported my comment, that you are not shaking your fist at me. But I would like to point out that I never said word one about my opinions on socialism. I fully support EVERYTHING you mentioned, and more.
None of which were left up to government in the first place. All of these things could be privatized, social security could be eliminated. Social Security and Wildlife Reserves were all brought about during the progressive era (FDR, TR, HH). Police could be left up to the states as could school systems. Public schooling does not work, and police forces have a hard time getting funding as well. The more social programs you have the harder it is to fund them. Yet the progressives still want more
Police departments and school systems for the most part are state run, the federal government has very limited involvement in either of these institutions, and what involvement it has, it has for a reason. The FBI for example, works on crimes occurring between multiple states, and crimes against the federal government. The states run their own standardized testing, the states decide on the curricula, the states decide on which textbooks to use, and the states decide educational requirements. The only thing the Feds do is ensure that there is a standard being used in each state.
Police have a difficult time getting proper funding because police forces get the majority of their funding from the Local governments (exception: State troopers), so if the community is suffering then the Police force will suffer as well. If you think you have a solution I'd love to hear it.
And yet we fund things like public education, police/fire, and roads etc... because they are essential services necessary to run a state. People don't generally think of these services as "socialism" because we need these services if we want to maintain a certain standard of living. Yes, it's very possible to overextend our resources, and this is perhaps what we are doing right now.
What I'm saying if any anything is this. Some social programs are needed, some level of socialism has always been involved in the running of our government, but this is not always a bad thing. People see socialism as some sort of evil foe that needs to be slain, but socialism is only bad when over-used.
I will argue that the most successful governments in history have features of both capitalism and socialism.
Nothing is guaranteed by a constitution that a foreign entity like the UN is not required to follow.
Also, every right we have is not only a privilege, it's voluntary, as in we can choose to forgo that right as many people did in Germany because they were afraid for their lives.
Also, money, or more accurately, debt is a very indirect and powerful form of control. One can volunteer not to exercise their right when they know that by exercising their right, they won't get the needed funds. Think about it. The most liberal states will always be liberal because their liberalism will be a defining factor on the amount of funds they receive, and they are so desperately in debt, they cannot afford to piss the wrong politicians off. Sure, such control could probably be challenged in court, but can you tell me by which laws or amendments? Can you even prove it because CA is full of like-minded liberals so CA, nor the federal government will ever admit it. Besides that debt desperation doesn't do anything to the politician themselves except make them rich as the more money that flows, the more of it can be skimmed, and the more of it diverted to allies who will in turn donate back to the politician. Sure the state will suffer, but the politician will only become more powerful.
If you need proof, you have only to look to the party who gains the most the more people suffer, the more impoverished they are, the more broken homes there are. Yeah, social programs make massive amounts of money that gets funneled to politicians all over the nation, and not only that, who do people who are suffering, and most often less educated because of the impoverished state they live in, vote for? Who do they support?
Tell me also, what party you think would benefit the most if everyone was successful, either employed or owned their own business, and most who wanted to own their own business knew more or less what they could do to attempt to make an entrepreneur of themselves? LOL, it's obvious. When you look at the reality of what's going on, you begin to see who's benefiting from our failures, and who from our successes. Then when politicians do or support things that would obviously hurt our economy, especially when it turns out those things failed and did indeed hurt our economy, how their power grows at every failure, their money increases at every failure, how people cry out in the streets on their behalf because of the failures.