CreateDebate


Debate Info

33
27
Yes No
Debate Score:60
Arguments:34
Total Votes:92
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (19)
 
 No (15)

Debate Creator

BHusseinBAMA(5) pic



Can Obama bring us out of the crisis we are in?

Or will he make it worse

Yes

Side Score: 33
VS.

No

Side Score: 27
5 points

I have no doubt that Obama is able to bring us out of the mess we are in. The secretary of treasury did not even know where some of the money went, the government had to investigate the government to find out where some of the money went. Some of it went to places that did not even need financial aid. I think that Obama's cabinet along with himself is going to get things done. But there is always the possibility that Obama will not do all of the things he has promised, I think that it could end up going either way all in all. I hope for Change in the rite direction but a lot of different politicians say a lot of BS. FDR prolonged the depression but most people today think he ended it truth is he made the depression last 7-8 years more than it should have. THAT IS BS. The war is what ended it and I hope we do not have to rely on luck with Obama.

Side: yes
1 point

In his first YouTube address as president, he talked about his plans to pull us through this crises. Judging from what he says in the video, I'd say he's handling things perfectly. Government investment will eventually lead us back to prosperity.

(transcript)

01/24/09: President Obama's Weekly Address
Side: yes
0 points

A couple people mentioned FDR, and how it wasn't his programs, but the war that got us out of the great depression.

There's way more to it than that though.

It's not like Jesus floated down from heaven and gave the U.S. a fat check for beating the Nazi's (though he should have, what's up with that?)

The reason the war got us out of the depression is because it created jobs.

jobs, jobs, jobs.

That's it.

Tax cuts, big government bailouts, at the end of the day it's all B.S.

It's political populism ("read my lips, no new taxes") and corporate smokescreens (sixty thousand dollar ergonomical office chair for the CEO of a failing company anyone?)

If Obama can create sustainable jobs, than we will get out of this. And so far, it seems his plans for doing so are as solid as any I've seen.

But that financial bailout was a huge mistake, and I said that from the beginning.

Minus all the wall street fancy talk, and the "oh it's just too confusing for the common person to understand"

Here's the reasoning behind bailing out banks...

So that can lend more money!

To what end? So people can spend more money until they're again not able to pay the bank what was lent? So guess what? The banks need another bailout.

It's been insinuated on every news channel that somehow you wouldn't be able to get your money out of the bank. That somehow, if banks failed, people would be broke.

But your money is already insured. As the government has demonstrated, it's very capable of dolling out large sums of cash, and anything not covered by the failing banks would have easily been picked up by uncle sam... probably for less than the bailout.

Nothing is too big to fail. Ask Rome. And when a country starts acting like something is, well, pride before fall.

That was a huge tangent.

The point is only jobs will save the economy.

Side: yes
1 point

all we need to do is start another world war and we will be good to go!

Side: yes
-1 points

Yeah he can, the question is, will he?

" HANNITY: You want your country to succeed, and you believe that his views implemented represent failure, predictable failure, and conservatism would represent predictable success.

RUSH: Well, I don't know where what he wants to try has worked. It didn't work in the Soviet Union. It doesn't work in China. They're having to become like us in China in order to survive. It hasn't worked in Cuba. It hasn't worked! It didn't work when the Pilgrims arrived. They tried socialism. Remember, they had a plot of ground, they shared what they produced, and the slackers figured out they didn't have to produce anything to get goodies. So William Bradford said, "The heck with this," and he said, "Okay, you get to keep everything you produce, and you're not sharing it." So everybody had to work. They were really giving thanks to God for the lesson that socialism failed. It has never worked. The New Deal didn't work. You know, Hoover was president through the Depression for one year. FDR prolonged the depression for seven or eight years, and yet he's given credit for ending the Depression. It didn't happen! World War II ended the Depression. The New Deal didn't work. This is New New Deal. It doesn't work. If it works, it will be the first time that it works, but it never has, and I don't think this is going to be the record breaker. "

Side: yes
1 point

I don't know if he's trying to convince his listeners or just plain stupid, but it's sad that Rush Limbaugh does not understand what socialism is. Increasing government spending, and taxing the rich a little bit more does not make you a communist, and the quicker we as a nation realize that, the sooner we can have intelligent discussions about how to fix the economy.

It's fine if you believe in less government spending, or more government spending but as soon as you call someone a socialist without good reason then the entire argument becomes pointless.

Side: yes
jessald(1915) Disputed
0 points

Obama is far from a socialist.

Pure socialism doesn't work.

Pure capitalism doesn't work either.

You need a mix.

Side: yes
1 point

you mean a third way? Like Facism then, the middle ground between Socialism and Capitalism.

w/e you say man.

Side: Time Will Tell
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
0 points

"Pure socialism doesn't work.

Pure capitalism doesn't work either."

but which one would be worse?

Of course, socialism would be the worst.

We might need a mix but its not a 50/50 one. We mostly need capitalism. And who says that mix has to have socialism?

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
0 points

Conservativism = less government spending and less taxation and more individual freedom.

Unfortunately this is not what the current Republican party represents at all,

nor do those two sad comedians you quoted.

Under Bush the government has become bigger than ever. Government spending has increased hugely. Taxes have not changed much at all outside of the pitance of a return most Americans got, and the enormous loopholes only the richest of the rich can take advantage of. link

These characters screaming conservatism, that you seem so intent on following, are not conservative, they're far right republican nuts.

They don't believe in individual freedoms at all, as they are huge fans of the Patriot Act. They want less taxes, but only for those who need it the least. (How is a tax cut going to stimulate the economy if it's only given to those who don't need to and won't spend it?) They do believe in less government when it comes to things like oversight of industry, hence crappy chemicals in food, annual cases of death from weird diseases (ecoli in broccoli? in America? are you effing serious?) and all kinds of opportunity for conmen to take advantage of the system (Madoff,) not to mention the 100% avoidable housing crisis that even a little oversite and responsibility by someone in charge could have curbed.

Conservatism represents predictable success? You've lived in that bubble long enough Jake, time to take a look at the real world.

Side: yes
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
0 points

"Conservativism = less government spending and less taxation and more individual freedom."

"Conservatism represents predictable success? You've lived in that bubble long enough Jake, time to take a look at the real world."

You can't predict success from that!? Good thing our founding fathers weren't that stupid. Give me a break, please.

Side: he probably wont
-3 points
MBurke12(81) Disputed
1 point

Just because he said it doesn't mean it can actually happen. And he said "it's time for a change" not "it's time four a change". Maybe the money in the education dept. of the stimulus plan will be beneficial to you.

Side: No
5 points

Really, who the fuck knows. Maybe he can, maybe he can't. I agree with his energy policy, but that isn't part of the "crisis". Now, we're in a crisis because of the Democratic control over the House and Senate and the Federal government's inability to oversee loans and Wall Street "LOL, LETS JUST GIVE MONEY TO POOR MORONS WHO CAN'T PAY IT BACK".

He's really just the part of the problem offering a solution, but really, isn't that how it always is? Politicians are a bunch of morons who end up somehow getting us out of it (either through actual legislation or just the Luck of America).

WWII is a great example of how bitter sweet our time was then. WWII is what got us out of the Depression, but a shit load of Americans died. Yet, everyone says FDR ended the Depression (well, historians don't, but everyone else does). FDR did give us "hope", yes, and i think people needed someone like FDR at the time because people are emotional wrecks... sort of like now with Obama.

Really, i think it's all up in the air and whether we get out of this recession is just random chance. What i do hope is that Obama will do the right thing when opportunities come.

Of course, already i disagree with what he has done (close down Gitmo and send money to foreign countries that help with abortions), but i'm hoping the Big picture will be good (like the energy independence shit).

Side: Time Will Tell
1 point

That is true FDR prolonged getting out of the depression for I think 7-8 years.

Side: Time Will Tell
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

The impact of the New Deal is unclear. Saying "FDR prolonged the depression" is misleading since there is no agreement among historians about its impact.

Also, Obama's program is much more moderate than Roosevelt's was.

Supporting Evidence: Critical interpretations of New Deal economic policies (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: yes
baszuka(1) Disputed
-1 points

---------------------------------

Side: yes
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

"Politicians are a bunch of morons"

Not all of them. I bet your average politician is smarter than your average citizen - they at least have to be smart enough to get elected.

Side: yes
sparsely(498) Disputed
2 points

you mean well-funded enough to get elected. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.

qualifications please
Side: No
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

their campaign managers have to be smart enough to get them elected. Politicians are basically the average civilian except they have a niche. Rich, Charismatic and a Masters in something. Now, obviously many of them are educated, they all got Masters (which doesn't mean shit, Washington and Lincoln didn't even go to College and many would consider them way smarter than any politician these days).

I think what makes them morons is how they sell out to the popular idea at the time. They don't actually think about the consequences of their actions. Book smart? Yes. Common Sense smart? shit no.

Side: Time Will Tell
2 points

No, he can't. I know he has been the president for only 8 days but this stimulus package he has been pushing for over 2 months now is full of pork and more government programs. The Democrats in the white house are head over heals praising their lord Obama but the fact is that this package doesn't stimulate the economy as well as it could in the short term and doesn't create as many jobs as he thinks it will. He is a man who knows his history but it seems that he is ignoring the fact that the more the government interfere the worst things have gotten. More regulation, more government jobs, more employment benefits more complicated tax structures kill small business and raise the prices for everything in big businesses.

He is taking the right steps to create transparency and he is trying to create unity in the white house but overall he hasn't not shown a great deal of success with his plans to bolster the economy. He is extremely intelligent and I am sure sooner or later he and his fellow democrats will get it right but the question is will there be any tax dollars left for them to gamble on economy steroids. If this bank stabilization plan doesn't wipe out the common share holders and investors of the companies, then confidence will be back and I will restart my opinion.

Side: No
1 point

No he will not be able to. His new stimulus package is not even going to generate that many jobs. The crisis we are in is not going to be solved in 1 term. There was an ad in the paper for a job at a burger joint where I live. My brother went to apply there and there was over 80 people waiting to apply. If that is not ludicrous IDK WTF IS.

Side: No
1 point

He can do things to try and slow down the (many) crisis were in but whatever he does we will not be out of the woods untill after his term, at least his 1st term.

Side: he probably wont
1 point

No, already in a few weeks while running he said that he would help end the war. This amount of time in and boom! not a word about the war. And the first people that he talks to is not even American. Come on, that symbolizes that he won because a good amount of people wanted to make history in the country's presidency record. Watch in the first 100 days obama is gonna do nothin

Side: No