Resolved: The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party

Framework: Pro's phrasing of the framework is incorrect. I did state that I think the two parties are equally bad, but that doesn't mean I think they're equally bad on every specific point. He has to show that the Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party in more ways than the Republican Party is better than the Democratic Party. So if, based on the arguments presented, voters are convinced that he's shown that the Democratic Party is better on one point, but the Republican Party is better on a different point, Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. C1: "My opponent's claim about the Federal Reserve is entirely false. The very purpose of the Federal Reserve is to correct the imbalances created by government policy"—I made 2 claims about the Federal Reserve, so I'm not sure which Pro is referring to. First, I claimed that the Fed causes inflation, as evidenced by the general lack of inflation before the Fed existed. If my opponent was instead referring to my claim that the Fed causes the business cycle, it does do that, but there isn't room to go into that here. But it doesn't really matter—my point was that the bust part of the business cycle happens regardless of which party happens to be in power, so neither party can take more credit or blame than the other. Thus, his earlier statistics about the relative rates of unemployment and inflation and such under Democratic vs. Republican regimes mean nothing, since economic downturns are going to happen anyway—which party happens to be in power when the crash hits doesn't matter. Since the only evidence for his claims that the Democrats' policies are better for the economy were those statistics, this point is not in the Democrats' favor. For my opponent's points on tax policy, see C10. C2: My opponent is correct in saying that we can't expect "nothing" to happen if we release tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, he has failed to show that 1) Significant warming will happen as a result of the high amounts of CO2, and 2) That the costs of doing nothing about greenhouse gases outweigh the costs of the anti-global warming legislation that Republicans and Democrats disagree on—the cap and trade bill. As for 1, Pro has not provided an argument, merely a series of links. "Listing arguments to prove that global warming exists would use up much more than my 8,000 characters, so I will provide the following links that my opponent may read and refute if he should choose to do so."—Well, Pro, I also have an 8000 char limit, so instead of an argument, I will respond to your series of links with another series of links. http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... On point 2, he also has not shown this. The cap and trade bill will only reduce global warming by about .1 degree F by 2050—an insignificant amount. [6] Even a more extensive bill would likely have little to no effect on global warming, because developing countries like China and India will never agree to significantly reduce their emissions. With their current economies, they depend on fossil fuels to continue their growth, and would not jeopardize that. If fossil fuel use is reduced in the U.S., that just means more for China and India, who burn less efficiently and in less fuel-efficient ways. [7] In addition, the bill, by raising energy prices, would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, as well as increasing energy costs for the average American, with "electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015." [8] C3: The shady way the CFMA was passed doesn't matter. Both parties do that sort of thing, and both parties voted for the bill without bothering to find out what was in it. Nothing my opponent has said here contradicts my claim that the Republicans and Democrats have the same policy on regulation—increasing it, while occasionally giving breaks to their friends. C4: Pro dismisses the huge additional costs to both future taxpayers and the individuals and businesses who will have to pay trillions more because of Obamacare by saying that it provides health insurance to millions. But, surely, the goal of health care reform should be to improve health care outcomes. While the bill hasn't taken effect yet, we can get a good idea of what effect it will have on health care outcomes by looking at the Massachusetts health care reform, which was essentially the same bill. It has been a failure. Health care costs have skyrocketed, and while more people are covered by health insurance, it has not the actual health of the people of Massachusetts overall. [1] [2] Pro claims that it could reduce the amount of health-care caused bankruptcies, but this is a small gain for the price of trillions of dollars in costs to taxpayers, individuals, and businesses. While Pro claims that the extremely small reduction in the deficit over the next ten years will aid the economy, he neglects to consider the damage to the economy the other costs of Obamacare will create. By increasing the cost of healthcare for individuals and businesses, the bill will undoubtedly harm the economy and lead to less job creation. [3] In addition, provisions such as the new 1099 form requirements will greatly increase the amount of red-tape businesses have to deal with, reducing their ability to create desperately needed new jobs. [4] My opponent correctly points out that reality matters more than rhetoric, so even though the Republican's don't really oppose many of the parts of Obamacare, the reality that they tried to stop it is what matters. Since Obamcare is a terrible bill, this point is in the Republican's favor. C10: The years after the Bush tax cuts were indeed a period of slow growth. But that doesn't mean the Bush tax cuts didn't help—it just means that other factors slowed growth significantly. Looking at other periods, the 60s after Kennedy sharply cut the top marginal tax, and the 80s after Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate, were periods of high growth. But those examples were of cuts to extremely high tax rates, and are different situations than then the Bush tax cut, which cut the top marginal tax rate 5% from 39%. Let's look at a comparable situation—Clinton's tax hike, which moved that tax rate up to 39% in the first place. The four years after the tax hike of 93 were years of moderate growth, averaging 3.2%. [5] The growth should have been much higher, since the economy was recovering from a recession, when growth rates are generally far higher than normal. But that doesn't prove anything—the slower growth could have been caused by factors other than tax rates. However, if we compare that period to the 4 years after the cut in the capital gains tax in 1997, it's clear that the tax hike hurt growth. The real boom years under Clinton were the years after 1997—even though the years right after the economy was recovering from a recession should normally have been higher, they weren't; the economy averaged 4.2% growth during the 1997-200 period. [5] And it wasn't just GDP that was better during the latter years—real wages increased by 6.5% during the 1997-2000 period, vs 0.8% during 1993-1996. [5] Not only that, but the budget surpluses of the Clinton years only happened after the cut in the capital gains tax. [5] As I pointed out before, the statistics my opponent cited in Round 1 C1 mean absolutely nothing (see my Round 1 C1 for an explanation). So, if anything, this is a point in the Republican's favor. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com...