Which side makes a better case?
avatar
24 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • elibowman
  • Draw
  • mfm08a
  • a year ago

    I kept trying to bring this debate back to the economy specifically, but sometimes these things can go in a million different directions. Thanks for tuning in, everybody.

    • a year ago

      I'd like to thank elibowman and mfm08a for conducting a clean, honest, thoughtful debate. A civil, clean, honest, thoughtful debate.

      You presented a model which future models should emulate.

    • a year ago

      I don't know much about this topic so I don't think I can give a stance or a vote but I learned so much from watching you guys debate. So interesting!

      • a year ago

        I have to agree with @mfm08a that government intervention is needed when it comes to poverty and welfare. Without those systems you leave a lot of people without anything to rely on.

        And I know @elibowman you mention charity as taking on that burden but the reality is, I don't that would be even close to enough.

        • a year ago

          Perhaps.

        • 9 months ago

          @votesaad Americans have over $240B in charitable contributions in a single year in addition to the nearly $3B stolen from them by govt. I think it's very clear that if they had some of that money back they would put it into charities that actually have the incentive to try to get people back no t heir feet vs govt "Charities" where he incentive is to keep people poor and needy and addicted to govt handouts. I have a whole series of points explaining why govt 'charity' is so disgusting

        • 9 months ago

          @nellyj I don't think we can make that assumption. Keep in mind those contributions are spread over hundreds of different causes. Only a small portion would be willfully allotted to getting Americans out of poverty. I don't think the system is great now at all, I think it sucks. But I don't think this solution would work.

        • 9 months ago

          @votesaad sounds like a debatable topic
          -Government 'charity' is not charity, is terrible and truly helps very few. Private charity would work much better in a market system.

      • a year ago

        @elibowman your claim that 50% of the population is on welfare is soooooo far off, the percentage sits around 21%. Preparing for 100% of the population to be on welfare is just so absurd since it won't happen.

        http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html

        • a year ago

          This was a very very small piece of @elibowman 's argument. Great points about the benefits to privatizing fire and police especially in terms of crime prevention.

          Privatizing things that are currently government and tax-payer regulated will make those areas more competitive and we need that.

        • 9 months ago

          @japes16 I believe he's pointing out that ~50% of the population receive MORE in Federal government 'benefits' than the taxes they pay.

        • 9 months ago

          @nellyj if that's what he was referring to then I misinterpreted.

      • a year ago

        @mfm08a kind of floundering at the end of this debate a bit. @elibowman you seem to really know your stuff (I don't necessarily agree that a free market would be better but you crushed this debate)

        • a year ago

          The end floundering happened when I started to pivot to another subtopic. The problem here is the subject is so broad for the time allotted. I would like to break it down into more specific subtopics and debate @elibowman on the pieces.

          That said, I obviously disagree with your assessment of the debate outcome.

      • a year ago

        @elibowman I would love to debate you sometime!

      • a year ago

        A topic I wish was discussed more from both sides is solvency... If your favorite system for economy is wonderful and generally accepted as the best but isn't sustainable, it doesn't matter how good it is.

        I'm concerned about the citizens that ARE surviving due to government support... the number of people getting (be it a want or a need) assistance is increasing. At some point we run out of money. If the US looses its status as the reserve currency and can no longer print money to cover obligations, what happens to those people?

        My fear is that we will loose the status of having the reserve currency and to support the entitlement programs we will raise taxes... by raising taxes additional people will need assistance to survive. The snowball could continue until it all falls apart.

        Anyone that doesn't think this is likely, try playing SimCity classic, keeping taxes low/moderate, providing incredible entitlements AND keeping your city from going bankrupt (WITHOUT using a cheat code).

        I enjoyed the debate... great points on both sides.

        • 10 months ago

          MFM08A turned this into a debate about welfare, not markets