args

America should become a Social Democracy

First, I'll address my opponents arguments. 1. Freedom My opponent was missing the point. I wasn't saying that social democracies would have ended slavery any faster. All I was pointing out was that Thomas Paine, a man who arguably was one of our founding fathers, was ahead of his time. Not only did he believe in civil liberties, not only did he believe in more liberty (he wanted to abolish slavery) but he also believed that financial security was conducive, rather than detrimental to liberty. I was also pointing out that Paine's dream for America had many elements of a social democracy. 2. Happiness and money My opponent makes some interesting concessions and claims. First, he essentially concedes that Denmark and Canada could be societal and economic models. Then he claims that they aren't socially democratic. Both countries are more socially democratic than we are because they both have universal healthcare. But that's not all. Denmark's Prime Minister is Helle Thorning-Schmidt, and she's a Social Democrat. Moreover, the Social Democrats have held power for most of the previous century. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Denmark) Secondly, the official website of Denmark has this to say about its welfare state: The basic principle of the Danish welfare system, often referred to as the Scandinavian welfare model, is that all citizens have equal rights to social security. Within the Danish welfare system, a number of services are available to citizens, free of charge. This means that for instance the Danish health and educational systems are free. The Danish welfare model is subsidised by the state, and as a result Denmark has one of the highest taxation levels in the world. http://denmark.dk... My opponent points out that the Danes have deregulated their economy, in recent years. One example of this deregulation is flexicurity. Denmark had regulations which made it harder for businesses to hire and fire people. Denmark got rid of those regulations, that's the flexi part in flexisecurity. But what was the security? While they made it easier to fire people, they also strengthened unemployment benefits. Denmark is 1st in social mobility. Norway Norway has been politically dominated by it's Labour Party for years. Labour is a socially democratic party. Norway has universal healthcare, and we don't. Norway is 1st in GDP per capita. New Zealand: Not only does New Zealand have universal healthcare, social security, family benefits and benefits for single parents, but they also have state owned housing which helps many people who might otherwise be homeless. We should be taking notes. "Citing Europe and calling them social democracies is faulty, the only true social democracy in Europe would be Sweden. Most of Europe is embracing free market reforms, not socialistic/democratic ones. They are cutting safety nets, cutting taxes, and decreasing regulation while increasing free trade [5]. " Again, these countries have many features of social democracy which we simply don't have. They might be cutting taxes, and benefits, but their taxes are stil higher, and their benefits are still more generous. Furthermore, I don't mind defending Sweden, which is far from a failure. The country collapsing in the Eurozone is Greece, and that's because they tried socialism with low taxes. That wasn't going to work. Sweden has free health care, free dental care, benefits for families with children, an educational allowance which allows every kid to either get a higher education, or go to vocational school, without getting into debt. They also have Social Security, and Elderly care.http://www.sweden.se... The list goes on and on. Their top marginal tax rate is 60%, and people are still happy. Stefan Perrson lives in Sweden, pays that rate, and he's still the 17th richest man in the world.http://en.wikipedia.org...(magnate) Social Mobility is hgher in Sweden than it is in America. Their wealth is also more evenly distributed. While the top 20% of Americans have 8 times more money than the bottom 20% of Americans, the top 20% of Swedes have 4 times more than the bottom 20% of Swedes. The smaller gap between rich and poor, and the security of the Swedish welfare state, creates socioeconomic conditons which allow for more social mobility. Sweden is 6th in social mobility, America is 10th. The already rich may not be able to get as rich, but poor and middle class Swedes have a better chance of getting wealthy. Sweden is also the 5th happiest country in the world, and we're 10th. Note that the Swedes are happier than we are, even though they have very little sunlight for half the year. Many opponents of social democracy claim that social democratic reforms reduce innovation and hurt the economy. My opponent used several Cato and Heritage foundation studies to make this point. Yet Stockholm, Sweden, is a major hub for European startups. If anything, financial security helps foster innovation because poor people have more time and money to come up with the next big idea. Another false assumption is that social democracy can't be payed for. When the recession began, Sweden was in a strong fiscal position, with a budget surplus. Their surplus allowed them to spend more money, and this helped Sweden counter the recession. Sweden and Canada and Germany (Germany and Canada also have some features of social democracy including universal health care) were able to recover far faster than the U.S. My opponent argues that regulations started the recession. The truth is that 30 years of deregulatory policies allowed Wall Street to run wild. My opponent mentions the housing bubble. This happened because there wasn't proper oversight over predatory lending. Greedy overspeculation caused the recession. Paul Krugman is a noble laureate in economics, and he explained this in an interview. Here is the link: http://www.thedailybeast.com... My opponent also argues that tax policies hurt entrepreneurial growth. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts had very little, if any trickle down effect. While most economic growth went to the top, lower and middle income wages have stagnated even as inflation decreased their buying power. These tax cuts have caused greater socioeconomic inequity, which in turn, helped foster economic instability. As I pointed out in round 1, economic inequality reduces consumption and it hurts the economy, and economic instability. This is one of the main causes of boom and bust. My opponent has not refuted this contention. Furthermore, my opponent did mention the postwar boom. He didn't mention the fact that unions were very strong, and he didn't mention the fact that in the 1950s, our top marginal tax rate was 91%! Stronger unions and higher income taxes, and yes, stronger regulations than we have today, (Glass Steagle, for instance, was still in place) all contributed to 3 things: 1. Less disparity between rich and poor 2. A stronger middle class 3. economic stability. In fact, from 1945-1981, tax rates never went below 70%. Furthermore, 1945-1971 was a time when our middle class was strongest, and it was also our longest period of economic stability in history. Compare that to the Reagan, and Bush presidencies. A recession in 1983, a recession in 1987, an economy which was bad enough in 1992 for Clinton to win by saying, "It's the economy stupid." One can also recall that Bush jr., who also cut taxes and regulations, was President when our current recession began. Conclusion: Social Democracy will make our society more fair, more free, more happy, and more prosperous.