TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 8:37 PM
Good evening, @everyone in DPRSBC! I'm TheGrandmaster, Associate Justice of Task Force 51. Tonight, I will be moderating a political debate between participants The DS Guy and HawkbitAlpha.
Tonight, we are going to focus on many of the issues that we may consider important, and we're going to press for specifics.
I am honored to have this role, but this evening legitimately belongs to our two participants, and, just as important, to everyone else here.
We're calling this opening segment "Achieving Prosperity." Central to that is the issue of jobs and the economy.
There are two economic realities in America today, though it may not seem like that to the uninitiated.
There's been a record eight straight years of job growth, and census numbers show incomes have increased at a record rate after years of stagnation.
However, income inequality remains a very real and pressing issue, and nearly half of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.
Beginning with you, @crcoffin88redo, why do you feel your platform is better than that of your opponent to lift our economy up, to create the kinds of jobs that will put more money into the pockets of American works?

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 8:42 PM
My view is that the less involved the government is, the more liberty there is for the economy to thrive.  On the other hand, when there are too many regulations, it is harder for businesses to do well.  For example, raising the minimum wage requires employers to pay their workers more, therefore forcing them to cut hours and reduce workers.

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 8:43 PM
And @HawkbitAlpha, the same question.

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 8:43 PM
you see, believing in the idea of the completely free market is what we've tried for centuries, virtually the entire history of the US
with the only major exceptions being under presidents such as FDR and Lyndon Johnson
now, can either of you honestly tell me that this right-wing economy we've fostered for centuries has fairly rewarded the everyday person?
sure, it does wonders for the ownership class, but you, TGM, can personally vouch for the fact that ideas such as trickle-down economics do not work
on top of that, i don't view the government as necessarily being a force of negativity
when we had regulations, higher taxes, and strong worker unions, we were in our golden age of economic expansion
the middle class was the strongest in the world in that time, and when we decided to take our hands off of the market, that all went away
annnnd that's it

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 8:47 PM
@crcoffin88redo, response?

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 8:49 PM
The problem is that if people have too much power, they become corrupt.  It's wishful thinking that big government will solve problems.  The reality is, many people care more about taking money for themselves than helping the economy.  If the government has too much power, they might take taxes for themselves, whereas if the government is limited, there is a limit of corruption.

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 8:50 PM
Shall we have an open discussion on the subject?
@HawkbitAlpha

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 8:50 PM
i do believe you're failing to take into account two important factors here
1) our government is a representative democracy, and by proxy, we, in theory, have the power to use the government as a tool for good
which leads right into
2) what you fail to realize is that we already live in a system where the government is horribly corrupted, in no small part by the unlimited bribery that Citizens United v. FEC made legal
the entirety of the Republican Party in Congress, for example, won't act on matters of gun control precisely because they're (legally) paid large sums of money by the NRA to not do that
and while that happens, we all turn our backs, and pretend that the politicians we prefer are serving our interests well
this is one of the most important positions of the populist left i represent, to get money out of politics
@crcoffin88redo if you think that sounds like a good idea, the right-wing should have a similar movement, right?

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 8:54 PM
Well...
This has gone in some very different directions than I expected...
Response? @crcoffin88redo

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 8:56 PM
I would agree that bribery should be illegal.  Some amount of corruption comes with all government.  That is why government needs to be limited and people should vote against corrupt politicians.

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 8:57 PM
@HawkbitAlpha

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 8:57 PM
you see
you can get money out of politics, but that doesn't have any relevance to what you're saying
in fact, "limiting government" is exactly what gave us the corruption of money in politics, when the Supreme Court said that giving unlimited amounts of money to politicians was not a crime
that it wasn't their place to intervene
once again, the populist left runs candidates who fund their entire campaigns through donations from regular working-class people, and take no corporate PAC money
i cannot say the same for any politician whatsoever that you support
except for, maybe, Rand Paul

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:00 PM
Right, the supreme court oversteps its bounds quite often, such as Roe v Wade, when the constitution says nothing about abortion.  But if it's legal to give as much money as you want to a politician, why did Dinesh D'Souza go to jail for that?

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:01 PM
two parts to this
1) bringing up Roe v. Wade runs directly contradictory to your point, as that was a case where the government said it wasn't allowed to stop women getting abortions
so, no
Roe v. Wade is literally the opposite of the government "overstepping boundaries", and if "limited government" is what you really stood for, you would be cheering that decision as a matter of principle

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:02 PM
The states could have voted on it.  The supreme court had no business getting involved.

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:03 PM
that would simply mean the state governments would be left to their own devices to violate civil liberties
just because it's on a smaller scale doesn't change the fact
now, part 2

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:04 PM
Nice try, but not quite.  I believe in limited government, as in the government has some responsibilities, such as protecting people from crime.  Anti-abortionism may seem like big government, but it's actually limited government, and abortion is one of the few things government should prevent.

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:04 PM
2) Dinesh D'Souza is the only person in America stupid enough to actually violate campaign finance laws, in part because he made them in other peoples' names

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:04 PM
What it means is people vote on issues like abortion and gay marriage, rather than five judges imposing it.

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:04 PM
you're yet to answer the question of how limiting a person's choices is limited government

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 9:04 PM
Hold on.
I want to moderate this, but that said, I must interject with a fact.
@crcoffin88redo: Abortion is favored by the overwhelming majority of the population, in all polls taken about the issue. While you could argue in other cases that the Supreme Court rules against the will of the people, this is not one of them.
That is all.

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:07 PM
The people may vote on it, but that is not how abortion was legalized.  It was seven judges imposing their view on the nation.  Their job is to interpret constitution, but they took advantage of their position and made a law, which they had no right to do.

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:08 PM
so, you're going to talk about the Constitution
Roe v. Wade ruled that abortion was legal under a clause of the 14th Amendment
i know you want to argue against the case in whatever way you can, but this one won't work

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 9:10 PM
Ahem.
I'm still trying to work out how we got from "economics" to here.
I have a new question on the topic for you.
@crcoffin88redo: All of the times that we've deregulated the national economy and cut corporate taxes (ex. 1920's, and the 2000's under Bush), what we saw was a massive soaring of the economy followed by a large-scale crash. This is what's called the boom-bust cycle. What would you do to counteract that?

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:14 PM
I would counteract it with the fact that if money is taken from the rich and given to the poor, people are less incentivized to work for more money.  Many of them will leave the state or country.  As Margaret Thatcher said, socialism is a wonderful system until you run out of other people's money.

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 9:14 PM
@HawkbitAlpha ?

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:14 PM
that's simply not true
where we are right now, we have a less than 4% unemployment rate, but wages are stagnant, if not falling
as i've been saying, our system does not reward workers their fair share
Amazon's Jeff Bezos makes more than 300 times the wages of his own workers

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:15 PM
We have the lowest black unemployment and lowest Hispanic unemployment in a long time.

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:16 PM
where did you think i was going with this

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:16 PM
Who is the government to say, "You make too much money.  We will tax you extra."?

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:16 PM
we got to that point by creating tons of minimum-wage jobs, which, as i'm saying, are not even enough to pay rent for an apartment on
i'm not going to cheer that on

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:17 PM
The whole idea of minimum wage is you start there, and then work your way up to a higher paying job.  Minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage.

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:17 PM
once again, incorrect
when the minimum wage was set at what it is now, it was a living wage, but it was then devalued by inflation to being entirely unsustainable

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:17 PM
Inflation was happened because more currency has been printed.
has*

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:18 PM
and not only that, but our economy is built on people who work minimum wage jobs with no upwards mobility
you can't simply dismiss minimum wage workers because of where they are in life
thus, as i've been putting forward

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:18 PM
Minimum wage is not meant to be a job you continue forever.

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:18 PM
...did you not listen to what i just said
many, many people have no choice but to work a minimum wage job, because our system has a very obvious lack of upward socioeconomic mobility
as i was going to say

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:19 PM
The less government intrusion, the more opportunity people have to look for a better job.

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:19 PM
have a minimum wage that's a living wage (as it was already), and tie it to inflation
how so?

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:20 PM
Let me ask you -

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 9:20 PM
(We need to wrap this segment up soon.)

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:20 PM
You who think people of the same sex should have the right to get married - why do you think it's moral to point a gun at the head of a business owner and demand that he pay his employees a certain wage?
Why can they not engage in a mutually agreed upon contract?

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:21 PM
let me guess
you think things will sort themselves out

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:21 PM
If someone is all right with working for ten dollars an hour, hopefully to eventually move on to a better job, why is that not okay?

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:22 PM
that we live in a country where, holy crap, you'll just be able to ask for better pay at will
riddle me this
if we didn't have a minimum wage at all, what do you think people already working minimum wage jobs would be paid
the same? more?

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:22 PM
People with tons of power do not know better than people with little power.
The minimum wage would probably be lower, but so what?  If they agree to it, there's no problem.
The government has no business getting involved.

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:23 PM
as i've been saying, and as you've been ignoring, many people who work minimum wage jobs are doing so out of having no other options
no chance of moving to a better paying job

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:23 PM
What do you mean no chance of moving to a better paying job?

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:23 PM
ask @TheGrandmaster
he spent years working on oil rigs, and had to move to a different state just to get a better job opportunity

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 9:24 PM
... '.'

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:25 PM
Even if that's true, what about the many people who do have a chance of moving to a better paying job?  What if someone really wants any job, but no one wants to hire them for fifteen dollars?  If the employer and employee are okay with it, why should the government get involved?  Explain to me why it's ethical to threaten a business owner at gunpoint to pay a certain wage.

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:26 PM
multiple part answer

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 9:26 PM
(After this answer, we'll take a short break.)

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:31 PM
1) indeed, what about them? what did you bring them up for? if they can escape a minimum wage job, the discussion of the minimum wage doesn't pertain to them
2) you seem to be running on the assumption that the minimum wage would suddenly double, but in reality, the Bernie Sanders/populist left solution is to apply the minimum wage increase in intervals over time (a few years), so as to not suddenly put businesses in trouble
3) running on another assumption, that employees are "okay" with being paid dirt-poor wages, is incredibly naive, and is quite blind to the fact that worker unions exist for the express purpose of combatting that fact
4) "Government does create prosperity and growth by creating the conditions that allow both entrepreneurs and their customers to thrive; balancing the power of capitalists like me and workers isn't bad for capitalism - it's essential to it." -Nick Hanauer

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 9:31 PM
Any final comments? @crcoffin88redo
(Make it short. We need to wrap this segment up.)

crcoffin88redo - Yesterday at 9:32 PM
Socialism spends the money that capitalism creates.  Only the free market allows the economy to thrive.  Socialism only takes and produces nothing.

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 9:33 PM
@HawkbitAlpha

HawkbitAlpha - Yesterday at 9:33 PM
i don't support socialism either
i support social democracy, the economic model used by the majority of countries in Europe
that is, within a capitalist framework, the government provides for basic needs
...yeah, that's all i've got

TheGrandmaster - Yesterday at 9:35 PM
Alright.