CreateDebate


Debate Info

20
23
Of Course No.
Debate Score:43
Arguments:26
Total Votes:47
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Of Course (12)
 
 No. (14)

Debate Creator

K1ll3r(52) pic



Is Obama "Destroying" the Economy?

Of Course

Side Score: 20
VS.

No.

Side Score: 23
3 points

America is headed towards even more troubled times. You simply cannot raise the debt levels like Obama is doing without some serious consequences.

It is time to vote the bums out (again).

Side: Of course
shunted(137) Disputed
4 points

The debt level as a percent of GDP was much higher at the end of World War II. The present debt level does not imply that there will be serious consequences. It might happen that there are serious consequences but there don't necessarily have to be serious consequences.

The consequences of our present spending will be determined by the quality of future policy decisions.

Side: No.
1 point

Our debt lever is not higher than at the end of World War II. Get your facts correct.

Now. 12.4 trillion debt /14.1 trilion GDP Now 85-90

Then it was 150% more.

Edit: Sorry, I misread the response. My mistake.

Side: Of course
A4B4(50) Disputed
1 point

A good observation, although a little simplistic. What's more important is to make sure the debt is reduced once we do recover.

It's important to remember that the debt is only the current state of a bigger concept: our nation's savings. Simply choosing to not pull money out of savings is not the solution; the solution is to make sure we put money back into savings once we're out of this recession.

Sadly, the typical American will soon forget about or "get used to" the new debt level, and rather vote for whatever keeps taxes lowest; that won't decrease the debt, but rather that will destroy the economy.

Side: No.
-2 points
3 points

Unfortunately, the assholes who required the 1st civil war are now global. Hang on to your hat, the next civil war will be world wide.

Side: Of course
Akulakhan(2960) Disputed
2 points

Nothing in life is instant. Everything requires time. Don't be demanding of a system that needs your help as much as you need it's. What is the goal of your revolution anyway? War only causes financial loss. Even if you and your buddies did exceed, the debt would be bigger. Good luck anyway, I suppose.

Side: No.
3 points

About as much as any other politician =/

.....................................................

Side: Of course
2 points

After the previous admin (which was also fiscally irresponsible), Obama's got us on the fast track to doomsday. Go politics!

Side: Of course
1 point

Yes he is. At least not making it any better. Did you watch the job summit. What a joke that was. Every business has been saying the same thing we don't know the rules of the game and fear of future higher cost of business because of tax increase. His rebuttal was well as soon as we can get these things passed then you will know. OMG it's not even funny. Private Sector has had 0% growth while the federal has had 2.2% for the year.

Honestly you want to help with Private Sector hiring then stop what you are doing with all of the entitlements that you are trying to put on the US economy. Obama you really want to help than get out of the way.

Side: Of course
1 point

yes in him spending all that money on trying to save our economy he destroyed our governments own well being and safety. now we will soon fall as prey to another country

Side: Of course
1 point

Obama has put us deeper in debt by billions of dollars. So in a way yes.

Side: Of course
1 point

raseing taxes and raiseing spending i just don't think so

Side: Of course
2 points

We had to run a short term deficit to save the economy. Obama's going to focus more on reducing the deficit starting next year, as things come back to life.

Aside from that, the major expenses are military, Social Security, and Medicare. They are all popular programs, so cutting any of them is going to be hard.

These problems were there before Obama took office, so it doesn't make sense to blame them on him.

Side: No.
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

The Afghan war is on him which raised the debt ceiling even more. He had the chance to pull out and listened to a general that lied about Pat Tillman's death. Going after a country that harbors terror? What a joke what are we going to do that Russia couldn't do after spending 12 years there in a war. Nothing! 9/11 happened right here we go attack from right here. It's all politics and money for big business to get the big contracts to go over there and nation build. Highest polls ever 49% of the American population wants us to be more isolationist and focus the attention on what's important and that is the US right now.

As far as him saying he will start reducing the debt I will believe that when I see it. So far his promise meter is pretty low or next to nothing. Just like his transparency and putting everything on C span for the public to see and no deals behind closed doors.

Side: Of course
jessald(1915) Disputed
2 points

It doesn't make sense to compare our current efforts in Afghanistan with the Soviet war.

1) The US was supplying the insurgents with modern weaponary. They have no such funding now.

2) The Soviets were supporting a brutal, tyrannical, communist government. We are supporting a modern democratic government. Karzai and his buddies may not be completely clean, but they are nowhere near as corrupt as their predecessors were.

3) Technology has improved since then. Our military is a lot more powerful than the Soviet's was.

What would you do about Afghanistan? Pull out, let the Taliban take over, and cross our fingers and hope they don't attack us? What if they spread to Pakistan? Stopping them may be impossible if they gain power and legitimacy.

The Obama administration has devoted a huge amount of time to contemplating this new counter-insurgency campaign. If anyone is qualified to make the call about what's best for America's future, it's them. Leave it to the pros.

Side: No.
2 points

No doubt, increasing the debt is bad. However, desperate times call for desperate measures. Obama (or, more specifically Bernanke) is doing the best he can to save the economy. The ones more responsible for "destroying" the economy are those who, when times are good, do not raise taxes and try to reduce the debt.

Managing the economy is like riding a multi-speed bicycle. There is a certain sustainable pace that should be kept; living above the means of this sustainable limit means we will soon live below the means. When times are good (riding downhill), we need to upshift; increase taxes and decrease the debt, even at the expense of living at more moderate means. That way, when times are bad (riding uphill), we can afford to downshift; decrease taxes and increase the debt in order to not experience the full hardships. At present, we downshift when times are tough, but rarely upshift again. Clinton was the only recent president to even both upshifting, and for that he was lambasted because he slowed our growth -- albeit to a sustainable rate.

Side: No.
2 points

The state of the economy is determined by the flow of money. The faster the circulation, the better the economy. Thusly the economy can only be fixed by us as a whole. We have to spend without fear. Fear is what's destroying the economy.

-

This is a lesson learned long ago. Let's not forget the past now.

Side: No.
1 point

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: No.

No he is not. If you watched his State of the Union, he explained his spending and how it is getting payed back. Then he instituted a three-year no spending period. The economy is already on the recovery. In three years we should be in great shape.

Side: No.

It is now 2015 and the unemployment figures continue to dwindle so President Obama is helping the economy.

Side: No.