What do you think about Democrats? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

What do you think about Democrats?
in Politics

I think that Democrats are the worst thing that could ever happen to this country. They are trying to rip this country away from what it was founded on. In my opinion, Democrats are just a bunch of cry babies who will do anything to destroy President trump. I can not stand them. What about you?

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +


  • I think what you're saying is a reflection of black and white thinking and a failure to recognize along the political spectrum that there exist a plethora of people all across the country and world for that matter sharing both democratic and republican views. 


  • I respect all opinions, but I just think that the Democrats ideas are horrible.

  • What ideas exactly?

  • I think that Democrats are the worst thing that could ever happen to this country. They are trying to rip this country away from what it was founded on. In my opinion, Democrats are just a bunch of cry babies who will do anything to destroy President trump. I can not stand them. What about you?

    You do realize it's only a small vocal group right? That's why they're called extreme leftists right? 

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1220 Pts

    You do realize it's only a small vocal group right? That's why they're called extreme leftists right?

    You do realize that that "small vocal group" is in control of the Dem party, right?  Dem congressional leaders don't even make a pretense at working with Trump, they're only interested in way to thwart and undermine the administration.
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts
    I was raised a Democrat. Like a good little Democrat, I hated Republicans right up until I watched the Presidential debates of 1980. I was 21 and a college student majoring in International Relations at the time. The Iranians had been holding our hostages for over a year and were humiliating our country because of our feckless, laughably weak President. Reagan offered an alternative that proved irresistible and his Presidency bore out the efficacy of Republican policy positions. I have never looked back. The transition from Obama to Trump was like a deja vu of 1981-83, with the country and its economy turning around at breakneck speed and pride returning to the people who actually love the country. 

    Karl Marx defined socialism as a transitional form of government between capitalism and communism. I view all leftism as a large funnel where the rim around the top represents traditional liberalism like we used to know here in the US. The cone-shaped body of the funnel represents socialism, with the wide top being occupied by liberal social democracies like those of Western Europe. The narrow, smaller part of the cone would represent the more authoritarian and oppressive regimes like Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Nicaragua. Finally, the narrow neck of the funnel represents the true communist countries in world history like the USSR, Maoist China, Castro's Cuba and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Now, ask yourself, which direction are the old school liberals of the Democrat Party in the US currently headed? If you said, "Down the funnel", give yourself a point. And then ask yourself, once something heads down a funnel, where does it invariably end up going? If you said, "Into the neck", give yourself another point. Never underestimate the tenacity of communists or their determination to prevail in the ongoing fight for economic domination of the world. 

    Today's Democrats are attempting to take us down a very dangerous road. It is an indictment of our public education system- run almost exclusively by Democrats- that our children are not taught the history of communism in the 20th century. The relationship between socialism and the very communism that slaughtered 100,000,000 innocent people is thoroughly ignored. Finally, anyone who contends that today's American Democrats bear no resemblance to the people who introduced communism to Europe and Asia in the last century is either ignoring history or revising it to shore up Democrats' chances of electoral success.   
  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts

    None of these Liberals, will govern in a way that will benefit the United States as a whole, but they will likely govern in a way that suits their liberal fanbases, or constituent followers, and themselves.

    Taxing the Rich, is a campaign sales pitch, that panders to their liberal followers.

    A Flat Tax, across the country, would benefit the country as a whole.

    To put the difference between the Liberals, and the Conservative ideals. 
  • They could be better. I agreed with a few of their propositions, but supporting things such as giving illegal aliens free healthcare immediately makes me cringe with revulsion and extreme disappointment. 
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2532 Pts
    edited July 2019
    Democrats until around 2005 - reasonable party advocating for achieving social security and stability by means of limited governmental action.
    Democrats from around 2005 to around 2016 - statist party supporting governmental control over economy as a whole.
    Democrats after around 2016 - unhinged socialists competing for the medal for the worst economical proposal in the history of the US.

    I could not watch their latest debate entirely, because I quickly got a bad feeling in my stomach and had to close the video. I cannot stomach Trump either, but, compared to anything any of the current Democratic candidates have to offer, he seems like a pragmatic option. The only Democratic candidates I can stand at all are Buttigieg and Biden, but the former has very poor campaigning skills, and the latter was bullied at the last debate for being too reasonable compared to others. Pretty sure that, whatever presidential candidate comes out of their ranks this time around, his/her opponent will be a strongly preferred option.
  • What do you think about Democrats?
    They are still bound by a united state, the American Republic, I think their still republican and demonstrate an inability to see whole truth. A woman candidate running for the executive office is a Presadera as united state in basic principle. 

  • How are you defining the whole truth?

  • @Sharky

    Whatever "economic turnaround" you might be thinking of actually started with the administration that was in office before trump. Remember, it was your man George W  who was in office during the great recession. Since you were 21 in 1980, you're obviously old enough to remember your boy George's attempt to "jump start" the economy by giving out checks to everybody (stimulus package) in the hopes that what people bought with those checks would stimulate growth. Lo and behold, that "stimulus package" turned out to be just an advancement on people's tax returns. Needless to say it turned out to be a wash and the great recession took place.

    The job growth that trump thinks he caused is just the continuation of the job growth that took place during Obamas second term. On top of that, the unemployment rate for people between the ages of 25 and 54 has gone up since trump took office. Remember, those were the people trump promised to help. The GDP growth is also a trend that started during the Obama administration. The numbers that we see in those places are not insanely better now that your guy is in office. Whatever economic numbers we're seeing today is because Obama was actually able to clean up the mess left by your guy George W, not because of your guy Don. 

  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts
    edited July 2019

    None of the Democrats, or Liberals, who are currently campaigning to become the next POTUS, has what it takes govern the United States, as a whole?

    But they do have what it takes, to govern their individual followers, or fanbases, by placing aside, the rest of the US citizens, who aren't like minded, like themselves?

  • How are you defining the whole truth?
    complex principle is a whole truth, Truth is basic principle.
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 473 Pts
    edited July 2019
    In this thread,

    A bunch of Republicans who view all Democrats as antifa and Bernie, and a bunch of Democrats who view Republicans as white supremacists and Trump.

    There are Republicans both in Congress and people that I personally know that I get along very well with and can support many views with. There are Republicans that I disagree to a crazy standard with. There are Democrats that I agree with on a lot and Democrats that I substantially disagree with. I'm definitely on the left and so far I have been quite a fan of gorsuch on the supreme Court.

    I don't like Bernie. I don't like Biden. I like Pete Buttigieg. One of my absolute favorite proposals by Pete was implemented before by a republican, George H. W. Bush. Pete wants to expand student debt forgiveness, a liberal policy, by expanding civil service opportunities in Americorps and the peace Corp. H.W. had his 1,000 points of light. You want free college? Volunteer for the country. You want to immigrate as a poor person? Volunteer into the army.

    I don't really understand how people on the right can be 100% against free or cheaper healthcare while also being 100% for tax cuts for the wealthy. Big companies pay no federal income taxes. Probably the biggest travesty of the last few decades has been the Panama and Paradise papers, but neither party cares. If we dealt with off shore accounts that are set up purely to dodge taxes, almost entirely by the rich and businesses, we could fund the programs that Democrats push for without raising taxes which is supposedly the Republican sticking point.

    And forget policy, even the cultural battles can get so dumb on both sides over the same issue. The Betsy Rose Nikes. The left led by Kaepernick wanted them gone because the 13 colonies used slaves. So should we get rid of the 13 stripes which represents the same colonies? The right was in a frenzy because how dare you because against any American flag on clothes, that's so unpatriotic. Totalling ignoring the fact that using the flag on clothing or as advertisement is against the U.S. flag code and a misdemeanor in D.C. the right should be the ones against putting flags on clothing!

    Bottom line is both sides are filled with diverse views and hypocrites and it's impossible to paint the whole group as anything. If you break down political views into deep nuance with many different viewpoints you can start making judgements, but going 50/50 is pretty pointless and only furthers the divide.
  • I don't really follow the US politics that much and so can't really make too much of a comment. What I have by some US fellows though is that the US left is like EU version of the right.

  • I think they have good, and bad points, like any other political party.
  • The idea of the democrat is the promotional sales pitch on a politics not America. Worded bluntly, a republican is not a political party at all, it is a public statement of whole truth as witness account. Unrealized. Democracy is an idea to lengthen the political process by addressing it as a sporting event with teams. A united state constitutional republic as host addresses the process as just part of the agenda in common defense, “of for the people, by the people.”

  • I think that Democrats are the worst thing that could ever happen to this country. They are trying to rip this country away from what it was founded on. In my opinion, Democrats are just a bunch of cry babies who will do anything to destroy President trump. I can not stand them. What about you?

    Please, if you do not mind explain how Executive Officer Trump preserves the United State in American Constitution for you?
  • TKDBTKDB 400 Pts

    I'm wondering when both the Democrats, and the Republicans finally get together, and create a Flat Tax bill, where every state in the United States, pays their fair share in Taxation?

    So instead of finding faults with each other's taxation points of view, why not do the country a favor, and do the simplest thing, and make the Flat Tax bill, a reality? 

    Isn't in a sense, every political representative, in the country, responsible for their individual budgets? 

    Being that each political representative, has an infrastructure, and their constituents to take care of right? 

    Isn't that why they were voted into their respective political offices for? 

    Because if a political representative, isn't fully carrying out, their elected duties, then why did they campaign to become a political representative to begin with? 

    So, its nonsensical that every state in the United States, isn't paying their fair share in taxation? 

    "I don't really understand how people on the right can be 100% against free or cheaper healthcare while also being 100% for tax cuts for the wealthy. Big companies pay no federal income taxes. Probably the biggest travesty of the last few decades has been the Panama and Paradise papers, but neither party cares. If we dealt with off shore accounts that are set up purely to dodge taxes, almost entirely by the rich and businesses, we could fund the programs that Democrats push for without raising taxes which is supposedly the Republican sticking point."
  • I am sorry I just can't get on board with any of the social programs that democrates are proposing right now.

    Lets look at medicare for all.  Lets forget about the companies and thousand of employess that would lose their jobs. Lets consider the fact that medicare does not cover a lot of things that private insurance does. Also they tend to pay a lot less and are slow to pay doctors.  This would probably make a lot of the better doctors move to private pay as from what I have been told has happened in other countries which leaves the best care available only to the rich.

    Then there is obama care or the "Affordable Care Act" that was not affordable for many who needed it and becausevthey couldn't afford it of course it was a good idea to charge those people $2000 dollars a year.  Also to help pay for it they added a higher precentage rate on student loans.  This still didn't pay for it so the country had to barrow money adding to the national debt.

    I am not completly againsr health care for all I just haven't seen a comperhensive plan that not only benifits all the people including the  doctors and doesn't break the backs of the tax payer.

    Then there is the attack on corporations. When will people realize that the more money a corporation has to put out whether it is in taxes or cost of goods the more adjustments they will make.  Those adjustments may come in a decrease of staff and wages paid out to the price of the goods they put out.  

    I also can't agree with paying for everyones college education or thier debts.  At least not without a good way to pay for it and a plan of who's depts should be paid off.  If we are going to pay for people to go to college shouldn't we only be supporting the kids that make good grades and actually graduate.  I personally don't want my taxes going to pay for a kid that goes to college and spends their time partying and barely or not passing classes and never graduating.  Maybe if they introduce a plan that forgives the loans after they have graduated with good grades and they come up with a reasonable way to pay for it.

    Really I don't want taxes raised for programs that do not consider the whole picture. 

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1220 Pts
    all4actt said:

    I also can't agree with paying for everyones college education or thier debts.  At least not without a good way to pay for it and a plan of who's depts should be paid off.  If we are going to pay for people to go to college shouldn't we only be supporting the kids that make good grades and actually graduate.  I personally don't want my taxes going to pay for a kid that goes to college and spends their time partying and barely or not passing classes and never graduating.  Maybe if they introduce a plan that forgives the loans after they have graduated with good grades and they come up with a reasonable way to pay for it.

    Additionally, we shouldn't be paying for useless degrees.  The federal government shouldn't be paying for degrees in music appreciation or French literature when there are almost no jobs to be had using those degrees. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2532 Pts
    edited July 2019

    I am neither Democrat nor Republican; I dislike both parties, and I am not aware of a single modern party anywhere in the world with views of which I strongly sympathise. I liked the Pirate Party in the EU parliament until it started collaborating with authoritarians, and I like the economical views of People's Action Party in Singapore, although I cannot stomach their sociopolitical views.

    Not sure where this sentiment comes from that only a member of one of these two parties can strongly dislike the other party. I do not need to be a Republican to see that Democrats as a whole are quickly losing their minds, considering what bunch of candidates they have this time around - and I do not need to be a Democrat to see that Trump has hijacked the Republican platform and is quickly pushing it in the protectionist-isolationist direction.

    Still, the Republicans appear the saner of the two, and even Trump himself is not all that bad, mostly refraining from meaningful action - as any president should. The Congress was intended to be the real power in the country by the Founding Fathers, and the role of the President has always been nothing more than to execute the will of the Congress and, in other regards, stay out of its way. The president was never supposed to be the agent of change. Trump wants to be one, but as a very experienced CEO understands that more often than not it helps to pull back and just observe. The bully in him conflicts with the CEO, and the CEO wins over surprisingly often.
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts

    Two quick points; first, those of you who continually try to credit Obama with creating the current economic boom do so at the risk of thoroughly discrediting practically everything else you say. Yes, there was job creation and economic growth under Obama but both were painfully sluggish for the entire eight years of his Presidency. The recovery was the worst and slowest in the post-war era despite the fact that the severity of the recession teed it up to be amongst one of the best and most robust recoveries. Tax and regulatory policies are and always have been the key to igniting a strong recovery. Obama was never going to lower taxes or relax onerous federal regulations and that is why the economy was never going to take off during his Presidency. 

    Second, the financial crisis in 2008 is directly attributable to the housing policies put in place under the Clinton Administration in the 1990's. When you lower credit standards to boost home ownership, you risk the integrity of our entire system of credit. That much was proven in a very painful way. Yes, W was responsible for going along with that foolishness. Unfortunately, a lot of the country thought those policies to be a good idea. We found out the hard way how bad they really were and almost unbelievably, Kamala Harris is now promising to repeat the whole idiotic mistake. 
  • @Sharky

    The housing policies of the Clinton administration had very little, or nothing to do with the Bushccesion. The FCIC was a panel that had representatives of both parties. "The majority report stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "were not a primary cause of the crisis" and that the Community Reinvestment Act "was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis." It was shown that government backed loans were performing well, it was the subprime mortgages that caused the crisis. The Bush administration deregulated subprime mortgages far more than any other administration previous. The lowering of credit standards was done on a reckless scale during the Bush administration, not the Clinton administration. There's also data that shows how the banks with the riskiest loan tactics were the ones who were pushing for the most aggressive deregulation policies. And of course, after the bubble burst, the Bush administration signed into law the Emergency Economic Stabilization act of 2008, which gave the federal government the power to purchase several hundred billion of dollars of "distressed assets", so many of the companies that were involved in the subprime crisis, got a bailout. All of the banks that were bailed out were forced to do so whether they liked it or not. Talk about government overreach. 

    Job growth was not painfully sluggish for the entirety of Obama's administration. There were 76 months of job growth during his administration, and there was job growth in every year from 2011 up to the end of his presidency. The S$P 500 doubled during Obamas presidency. It rose 113% in that time. We can plainly see in the graph below how job growth steadily grew for the entirety of Obama's second term. We can also plainly see that it hasn't spiked dramatically once trump took office. The job growth we are seeing now is a continuation of the previous Presidents administration.


  • @republicans

    They are misguided idealists being led by Communists.
  • @ZeusAres42

    Open borders

  • ]No way. open gates more like it.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1220 Pts

    ]No way. open gates more like it.

    Open borders and open gates to all the hospitals for free healthcare to illegals to be more precise.
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts

    I'll agree that Bush was complicit in exacerbating the severity of the housing collapse and that he was ridiculously squishy when it came to reeling in liberals' socialistic housing policies. However, the rest of your post is really just a rehash of Democrats coordinated circling of the wagons that occurred right after the 2008 collapse. They quickly realized that the source of the entire bubble was the Clinton Administration's demands that banks lower credit standards for low-income home buyers. Banks had been threatened with a regulatory onslaught and a rash of "redlining" prosecutions if they failed to comply. They were instructed to get "creative" in offering up mortgage products to people who previously wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting a mortgage thanks to poor credit ratings. THAT is how the subprime mortgage came to be. Of course, it was untenable for Democrats to allow this truth to see the light of day so, as is their SOP, they blamed "greedy bankers" for doing exactly what the Democrats ordered them to do. Tell me, if "greedy bankers" were really the problem, why didn't they invent subprime mortgages decades before the Clinton Administration made low-income home ownership a priority and twisted arms in the private sector in order to make it happen? I'll tell you why they didn't. They knew it to be a bad business decision and a threat to the credit rating system of the nation and hence, a threat to our entire economy. And they were right. Let the private sector handle the economy. Leftist politicians have proven over and over again throughout history that they cannot be trusted on ANY economic matters. 
  • piloteerpiloteer 523 Pts
    edited July 2019

    Those "socialistic housing policies" were just an expansion of the FHA loans to encourage more people of minority status to get homes, and stop FHA insured banks from redlining (the practice of refusing loans to minorities).Lets not pretend that white middle class recipients of FHA home loans aren't benefiting from a socialistic housing subsidy themselves, and don't think for a second that just because you think "low income home buyers" must be restricted from FHA subsidized loans, that it makes your message any less socialistic. Socialism does not exclude the concept of a bourgeoisie class with government granted power to enforce a socioeconomic status quo, socialism was designed for just that purpose. As far as I'm concerned, either you're against all subsidized home loans, or you're in bed with Marx himself. One thing I agree with Obama on, is his thoughts that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be shuddered and the housing industry should be placed in the hands of the private sector. In his words: “Housing prices don’t keep going on up forever at the kind of pace it was going up. It was crazy,” Obama said. “One of the key things to make sure it doesn’t happen again is to wind down these companies. They’re not really government but not really private sector; they’re known as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. For too long, these companies were allowed to make huge profits buying mortgages knowing that if their bets went bad taxpayers would be left holding the bag.”  How's that for irony, Mr socialism himself is saying that taxpayers shouldn't be buying homes for people who can afford to buy them for themselves. I love it!!!! You wouldn't have been a recipient of an FHAndout home loan yourself Sharky, would you? No not you, you're a person of honor who wouldn't take a handout to insure your socioeconomic status. 

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm starting to get the feeling that you don't understand what a subprime mortgage is and where it came from. Subprime mortgages WERE created decades before the Clinton administration(you didn't think subprime mortgages were created during the Clinton administration, did ya?). 

    In 1968 the federal program Fannie Mae was "privatized", but since they effectively had a monopoly on the secondary mortgage market (they actually had a monopoly on all mortgages, 95% of home loans since the 1930s were federally insured), they had to create competition in the secondary mortgage market for the new "privatized" Fannie Mae to stay afloat. That's when Freddie Mac was created. Because of the monopoly Fannie Mae had on the home loan industry, the only viable competition to be had in the market was for subpar, or subprime home loans(risky loans to people with lower income, or less than admirable credit). Although those loans were riskier, they were potentially far more profitable because the banks could charge a higher interest rate for people with less than admirable credit. Those banks weren't forced by law to compete on the secondary mortgage market, they wanted to be there. Freddie Mac was created to help private banks build up its insurance pool, so they could finally compete without the aid of the federal government. In an effort to legitimize the private banks independence of the federal government, the banks came up with a process that cut the risky subprime loans into tiny pieces, then they were put into packages stuffed with far less risky stocks and bonds. These packages had the stable return on investment from low risk stocks and bonds in them, but they also had the more profitable yet riskier home loans packed in with them, which made them a more robust stock package. That's how the subprime mortgage market began. There was still one problem with all this though, which was regulations.

     Throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s, private banks were pressuring the current president for deregulation so they could go after the more profitable subprime mortgages. From the Reagan administration up to the Clinton administration, deregulation was taking place, but the George W administration really went off the deep end when it came to them. A woman on welfare was allowed to purchase a million dollar home because of Bush Jr's policies. These types of loans were not FHA loans, they were private loans from private banks, and the Bush administration made it legal for those banks to give loans to people without any proof of a reliable source of income. But of course, if you have persuasive evidence that demonstrates that the subprime mortgage crisis was not the leading factor in the great recession, and it was because of the relaxed lending rules of the FHA loans, then feel free to show us. If you have evidence that the FCIC report was wrong, we'd love to see it.  The fact is, you're argument that the recession was caused by the Clinton administrations easing of FHA rules is just classic republican rhetoric, but my argument is the actual truth. 

  • SharkySharky 99 Pts

    Thanks for the history lesson. That was a very informative post.

    To put it simply, I oppose the federal government having any role in the housing market or in the mortgage industry, just as I oppose them having a role in the student loan market or the health insurance market. Government has an abysmal record of failure when it imposes itself on the free market. Yes, there is some level of regulation needed to keep unscrupulous people honest but unfortunately, government regulations often control things that pose little risk while failing to address things that have the potential to tank the entire economy. It is the compulsion of most politicians, and the Democrats in particular, to barge in and take control of entire sectors of our economy without regard for unintended consequences. This usually ends badly as we all saw way too clearly in 2008.

    Government, and not "greedy bankers", was responsible for what happened to our economy 11 years ago. Politicians pander for votes first and worry about the consequences- and blaming anyone other than themselves- later. 

    A quick question for you; what do you thing about Sen. Harris' promise to spend $100 billion on programs subsidizing home ownership amongst black people? Do you recognize that promise as a dangerous repetition of what happened in the '90's and 2000's or do you see it as a promotion of social and economic justice? 
  • piloteerpiloteer 523 Pts
    edited July 2019

    You are irking me!!! I keep trying to taunt you, but you consistently deflect it and come back with politeness, which makes me look like an a$$. Arrg, why won't you just react??? Fine! I guess you win by taking the high road. Meh!!

    Given the history of the subprime mortgage crisis, I would disagree with you about the government causing it. It was the exact same banks that were calling for more freedom to go after the more profitable, but equally risky market, that were crying for bailouts after the fact. In all fairness, when everybody started pointing the finger at Clinton and Bush, it's not like the banks were gonna do the honorable thing and fess up that it was their fault. At least not while the prospect of a bailout check was being dangled over their heads. They all pretty much pointed the finger at those guys too, and said "They made us do it". I do believe that when reckless lenders get bailed out, or reckless home buyers get pardoned, it creates a culture of business that deflects responsibility. I can't say I'm against deregulation, even if it causes recklessness in the market, but I feel like the real problem is the bailouts after that cause the problem. If George W Bush had taken a hard line stance on bailouts, and given none, he would have come out of it unscathed in my eyes. The banks should be allowed to take risky actions, just as the home buyers. The banks should be allowed to fail when they make bad choices,  just as the home buyers should. The idea of "to big to fail" came from the Bush administration. That's not a proper conservative ideal, that's cronyism at it's finest. Shame on Obama for shoring up the other end of the spectrum and letting the reckless home buyers off the hook, but his hands were sorta tied there, because everyone thought "the banks got their bailouts, what about the home owners"? Really, the American taxpayers are to blame most, for letting any politicians take their hard earned money to clean up the mess of the less desirable business cronies, and clueless home buyers. If the banks were allowed to fail, and the home buyers were allowed to go bankrupt, it would have served as a hard, yet valuable lesson for everybody. Don't make stupid loans, and never trust a banker you're buying a home from. 

    As far as Senator Harris's proposal, it doesn't look like it's aimed at black Americans specifically, it looks more like an idea to try and fix the problem of quality housing for all. Although that sounds like a communist war cry, the truth is, affordable housing is a problem because of gentrification. Her proposal would give renters that make up to 100,000 a tax credit every month. I personally wouldn't go about it in that manner, but at least she's proposing something where other politicians would be squeamish even talking about that subject because of their constituents. I personally would rather see an all out overhaul of the zoning laws. Her proposal may help those renters financially, but it is worthless when it comes to fixing the very problem it's trying to address, which is bad neighborhoods. Lets face it, when upper middle class white people come into a run down cheap neighborhood and think "oh, how quaint is this place, it's so Americana, and the rent is nothing", then they set up shop, open a whole foods store, start petitions for bicyclists rights, volunteer to help build the dog park, then boom, that run down cheap neighborhood is like Vermont all the sudden. That's when the everybody's rent goes up, and the zoning laws start. That's when the low income people have to find a new ghetto. Nobody lives in the inner cities anymore, except the one percenters. Then they make laws that make it economically impossible to work in those cities unless you actually live in those cities. It's a tough problem to try and fix. I don't necessarily agree with Senator Harris's proposal, but it doesn't seem like a lot of other politicians are even talking about that subject, so kudos to her. 

  • SharkySharky 99 Pts

    Apologies for my nauseating politeness! I'll do my level best to be crude and nasty in the finest American tradition! Just kidding. You sound like a nice person and aside from the same old, same old political differences, I would imagine we'd get along just fine. 

    I guess the point I'm trying to make is that government, led at the time primarily by Democrats, made the overarching decision that home ownership, especially in the black community, was critical to closing the wealth gap and to bringing about what Democrats see as social and economic justice. I distinctly remember hearing of the initiative and the objectives and, believe it or not, agreeing that it was a noble and worthy cause. I did not know the details of how politicians intended to reach the goals and honestly, I don't know how I would have felt or reacted if I had known that the intention was to lower credit standards for low-income borrowers in order to boost home ownership. I would like to think that, even as a young man in the 90's, I was educated and insightful enough to understand what a bone-headed idea THAT was.

    Maybe it's due to the "blame Clinton" or "blame Bush" nature of this argument that people cannot agree on it but I think you'll agree that our federal government was indeed the primary source and root of the 2008 financial crisis. Without a concerted government push for vastly expanded low-income home ownership involving both sides of the aisle, it would never have happened. Yes. the banks and mortgage lenders went all in with the subprime lending and they greatly exacerbated the problem with the "creativity" that was demanded of them. However, I do not believe that they would have gone so far down that road without the initial coercion from the government.

    I'm surprised you said you didn't think Sen. Harris proposal was aimed specifically at black home ownership. She very pointedly stated that in announcing the program and added that the goal was to close the wealth gap, not provide quality housing for all. You can watch her introduction of the idea here:  
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top


| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch