Resolved: The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party

I contend that the Democratic Party isn't better than the Republican Party because both parties are equally bad. The differences between them are largely differences in rhetoric, not reality. Both parties are filled with incompetence and corruption; both parties always favor the corporations over the people, and both parties support larger and more intrusive government. They are nothing but competing criminal gangs fighting over stolen loot—their disagreement isn't over how much to rob the American people, but over which group gets the proceeds of the theft. C1-Economy: Contrary to the title of the article my opponent cites, numbers DO lie. The fact that certain economic figures are better under Democratic regimes than Republican regimes proves nothing unless you can show that the party in power directly causes those figures. Inflation, for example, is entirely caused by the Federal Reserve, not the political parties. And both parties, when appointing Fed officials, tend to have the same policies (For example, the two most recent Fed Chairmen, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke were each appointed or reappointed by both Democratic and Republicans). How much inflation the Fed happens to be causing at any given time cannot be blamed more on one party than the other, since each party has the same policies regarding the Fed. Same with unemployment—also caused in part by the Fed, because it creates the business cycle. Booms and busts come in cycles, and the time the bust happens to occur has nothing to do with which party happens to be in power. C2-Environment: This point would indeed be a point in the Democrats' favor—if man-made global warming were real. It is, at best, inconclusive, so the disparity in support for laws to stop it, at best, show that neither party is better than the other. As for dependence on foreign oil—so what? My opponent states that it makes us vulnerable—but only to an increase in the price of oil, which is exactly what the policies the Democrats propose would do anyway. C3-Regulation: The CFMA was actually passed with nearly unanimous support from both parties [1], so this can't be considered a point for or against either party. Another popular example of deregulation was the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, which also had wide bi-partisan support, and was signed by a Democratic President. [2] The truth is that both parties have the same policy on regulation—overall, huge increases in it, with the occasional special breaks for their friends. C4-Healthcare: Democrats did "address the problem of high healthcare costs"—by making it worse. The deficit reduction figure is misleading—it reduces deficits in the next ten years because the parts that decrease deficits are implemented before the parts that significantly increase spending. If you look at the 10 years after Obamacare is fully implemented, it increases the deficit. That figure also doesn't include the increased costs passed on to individuals and businesses—even the CBO admits that Obamacare will increase, not decrease, healthcare costs. [3] Furthermore, Republicans don't really oppose the Obamacare reforms. If you look at their supposed "Pledge to America," they suggest health care reforms nearly identical to the ones that actually passed. The only real problem they have with Obamacare is that it has Obama's name on it. Whether you view the bill as good or bad, it isn't a point in either party's favor, since both parties really support the same changes—Republicans are just making a show about their supposed opposition to it for votes. C5-Gay Rights: If only the pro-gay-rights rhetoric of the Democrats translated into actual policies. However, the actual policies they (both parties) enact are the likes of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. On this point, neither party is really all that much better than the other. C6-Party Strength: Which criminal gang is bigger has nothing to do with which is better. Appealing to the lowest common denominator isn't something to brag about, nor is being better at buying votes with stolen taxpayer dollars. C7-Party of No: This point is only valid if a "moderate" agenda and compromise are accepted as desirable. I contend that any expansion of government is an immoral assault on Americans' rights, and that compromising on exactly how much to expand government is not a good thing—the only acceptable compromise is one that reduces the power of the state. The burden of proof is on my opponent to show that the expansion of government power is good, and that the Republicans are wrong for not aiding it. C8-Republican Agenda vs. Conservative Ideology: I agree that the Republicans lie about supporting small government, and are actually the party of big government. But the Democrats are openly the party of big government—neither party has the upper hand here. C9-Framing: The death tax really is a tax on those who die. It affects them before their deaths, when they are writing their wills, deciding what they want to happen to their estate. It prevents them from using the money that they earned as they see fit, by taking a percentage of it. Just as a consumption tax is a tax on people that buy things because the government is taking a percentage of the money that they'd normally use to purchase goods, lowering the amount they're able to purchase, the "estate tax" is a tax on people that are dying, lowering the amount of their money that they're able to use as they see fit. Furthermore, regardless of who exactly is being taxed, it's still theft, and the Republicans are right to oppose it by any means. Repeal does not "cost the US nearly $1 trillion dollars"—it doesn't "cost" the US government anything, since it's not the government's money. Just as me refraining from breaking into your home tonight and taking your stuff doesn't count as something that "costs" me money, the government refraining from robbing citizens doesn't "cost" the government anything. As for the "death panels" scare tactics—it doesn't matter whether or not Obamacare actually included death panels. As I said in C4, Obamacare would increase government spending, the deficit, and the cost of healthcare for individuals and businesses. It's a bad policy, and the Republicans were right to oppose it by any means. In addition, claims of death panels aren't as unreasonable as you think. The US government already has death panels—the FDA. They often withhold potentially lifesaving drugs from dying people—they're the very essence of the death panels Republicans fear. You may still support the FDA's death panels, but that doesn't make them not death panels. It isn't unreasonable to believe that death panels could expand under Obamacare, as government programs always grow in scope as time goes on. [1] http://www.govtrack.us... [2] http://www.govtrack.us... [3] http://www.cbo.gov...