CreateDebate


Debate Info

178
137
Yes No
Debate Score:315
Arguments:110
Total Votes:389
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (63)
 
 No (48)

Debate Creator

DaWolfman(3321) pic



Should Obama get his second term?

Down to that bottom year, he has claimed that he can make all right in the world within 8 years after his election. Should we as Americans give him that opportunity?

Yes

Side Score: 178
VS.

No

Side Score: 137
6 points

We should give him another opportunity. I saw that he tried to work his best. No reason we don't give him another opportunity ... I think that.

Side: yes
TheDude(165) Disputed
6 points

I wouldnt necessarily say that Obama isnt exactly trying his hardest or not doing anything at all, I just personally dont believe that the direction that hes taking is a very good one or beneficial one. He has more or less driven himself into a hole of favor debt, one that he pays back in biased legislature, and hes part of the Democratic Political party which is essentially using him, regardless of what he thinks. Under such, I believe that Both a new candidate is required, preferably one from an independent party for some fresh air and far less political agenda, and eventually a massive political overhaul of parties and lobbying. But since were talking about Obama specifically, youve got youre answer. No, its not a good idea. No, we dont have a good candidate replacement, but still no, its not a good idea.

Side: No
4 points

If anything is for sure, it is that Obama is giving it his all.

I feel that people are as a whole being harsh on a man that took the reins as the roller coaster only reached the peak.

My money is on another four years.

Side: yes
1 point

in a long run it wont make any difference... Nature will take care of US... Americans will have to work hard eventually even if they do not get concept anymore.

Side: yes
Hellno(17754) Disputed
1 point

WTF? Why in the hell would we want to give the Destroyer in Chief a second chance??? What? He hasn't done enough damage for ya yet?

Side: No
Uspwns101(445) Disputed
1 point

So taking his time filling out NCAA brackets is trying his hardest?

Side: No
6 points

I strongly believe that Obama should be given a second term. Since Obama has been in power, he has been trying his best to make certain achievements. We all know, that in the state that our ecomony is, it will not take weeks or months but possibly years to fix or embetter and for this reason, we should give him another chance since his leadership has cultivated many presidential achievements. We tend to blame him for not trying his best to embetter the economy but what we are failing to understand is the fact that this is his first term in office and the economy is not something you can fix in a second, it is a critical aspect that requires careful thought, planning, analysis and actions which can take several years. It is also through President Obama and his supporters that the health care bill, legislation to curb green house gases and improve the environment passes, preventing a second great depression by saving three large car manufacturers from going out of business and which would have possibly leave hundreds or thousands without jobs, and also passed the largest economic stimulus bill, bringing the war in Iraq to an end, thus saving the economy a lot of money and innocent lives from being taken, nuclear non-proliferation movement, repairing our image abroad, reversed George Bush's ban on federal funding to foreign organizations that allows abortion, lifted Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell research, implementation of education system reform, tobacco regulation, financial industry reformation, appointing two Supreme Court Justices. These are the presidential accomplishments achieved by Obama and these are proof that the president is determined to fullfill his promoses he had first made to the nation. Now, it is our turn to give him the chance he need to do so and give him some more time.

Side: yes
2 points

I agree because Obama has done a change to the United States of America an he should get his second term. He's changed many thing and trying to sort other promblems nobody thinks about.

Side: yes
Uspwns101(445) Disputed
2 points

First of all, he has had several years to fix the economy. No real greenhouse bills have been passed, they have accomplished nothing besides increasing spending. Saving the car companies did not prevent anything and he basically just plugged leaking holes in corporations that will never work due to the extreme wages payed to workers. The war in Iraq is not over. Anyone could have appointed two Justices and he really didn't do a good job there creating the biggest controversy in the history of the Supreme Court. He already had his chance, he failed at basically everything he said he would do. You are going to have to do better than that if you want to convince anyone he did a "good job"

Side: No
sayyad99(776) Disputed
2 points

Bush had several years to fix the economy as well. Did he fix it? Several years like how much? Do you think the economy is something you can fix in 3 or 4 years? If that was the case then we wouldnt have need a president when President Bush could have done it?

Saving the car company prevented many from being unemployed and also prevented a strain on the government providing unemployment benefits to recipients. We need taxpayers money to help maintain the economy of this country. The war in Iraq is not over but atleast the president is making an effort to tend to it. People make it seem as if political and social issues are something you can fix in less time and point their fingers at the President for that. If other people can do it, then they should have run for office as well.

Really? Anyone could appoint Supreme Court Justices? That all political parties and the entire nation did not dispute or challenge? Having a perception that something is far more easier than it looks is just a myth not reality in a world like the one we are living in today.

Side: yes
3 points

I believe what Obama He is young and ambitious, he is doing politics, he'd have kept the promise.

Side: yes
3 points

I don't see why not if they gave Bush two terms...................

Side: yes
9 points

Fair deal.

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

Side: yes
2 points

That largely depends on who he is running against. If he is running against someone better than himself, I will vote for that person. If he is running against someone worse than himself, then I will vote for Obama.

Side: who is he running against
2 points

Exactly. It also depends upon what he wants to do in his next term.

Side: yes
2 points

Ron Paul, because steam-punk dystopian USA would be so much more fun, not really.

I can't vote but oh well XD

Obama has kept many of his promises and working on others:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ promises/obameter/

Besides, that, I mean, being the way I am, I would fight for the man who can get the job done without pushing too much to the economic extreme. Obama is the man I know I could trust on that issue. Although we all know the stimulus was too small and that the marginal disutility of labour right now is less than desirable because of shrinking pay checks, which is counter productive in a liquidity trap.

That is my only qualm, that he failed to push through a more ambitious plan to capitalize on the deflation of the dollar and the economic recession to modernize many of America's public works, water, roads and such. Because, really, for the last 20 or so years most haven't been upgraded or anything.

That being what it is, the multiplier effect was much too small to make up the fall in aggregate demand from the collapse.

Side: yes
Uspwns101(445) Disputed
1 point

Although we all know the stimulus was too small.

Not true the stimulus was by far too big. Say by about 787 billion dollars

Side: No
Nihil(46) Disputed
1 point

Tell me what would have been better? To let things sit like Herbert Hoover did, do nothing at all? What is the rationale behind doing nothing? The belief that the market will fix it? I hate to tell you, but the market says that, right now, the lack of demand is the biggest problem.

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4871) Disputed
0 points

Ron Paul could never win North of Tennessee in any political capacity.

His ideas are too simple.

Not that I don't like some of what he does, however, some of his ideas, simple as they are (flat tax) simply do not work in the real world, and most understand they are not doable.

No one has a chance if elections were today. Even at his least popular he's been more popular than either politcal party, and more popular than any potential candidate.

If unemployment is still above 9% in two years there may be someone who can beat him. That likely is not going to happen though.

Side: yes
2 points

Bush got 8 years so Obama should get 8 years

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

Side: yes
2 points

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes! I think I speak for most people when I say, we don't want to go back to a "Bush era" presidency.

Side: yes
2 points

Hell yes he should, because he is the very model of a modern U.S. president and he can do whatever he like...

Side: yes
2 points

For passing a huge stimulus bill that fact checkers agree (check factcheck.org) helped us from going into a depression, as well as the bank bailout and auto industry bailout that, left unaddressed, could have cost the economy even more jobs, I will vote for him again.

For being a leader in the midst of criticism from both sides and having the audacity to believe that millions more Americans deserve health care as opposed to the Republican plan of not giving those millions of Americans health care, I will vote for him again.

For standing up for gay rights and leading the fight against the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prevents patriotic Americans from serving their country for something as silly as sexual preference, I will vote for him again.

For negotiating the START treaty and seeing it passed in a bipartisan way, I will vote for him again.

And for the times when his heart was in the right place and he tried to do but could not thanks to Republican and Blue Dog opposition in Congress (a public option, reducing the deficit by not granting tax cuts to the richest Americans, the DREAM act), I will vote for him again.

Electing him again, to me, is a no-brainer, but he can not be as effective until we put people in Congress who agree with his vision.

Side: yes
2 points

He is not done with his task yet (Retrieving US Troops from Middle East)

Side: yes
2 points

Why not? He is not doing a bad job, it could be better if things was different.

Side: yes
2 points

YES WE SHOULD!! I think that he has been doing a good job. When he became president, the country was handed to him in really bad shape!The country is in way better shape now. I think many people expected too much from him and some people just hate him 100% for no reason

Side: yes
deepishm(357) Disputed
1 point

Tell me how the country was in bad shape when he was elected.The main difference between BUSH AND OBAMA is that Bush sent troops to Iraq and Obama sent troops to Libya.

Side: No
Bohemian(3870) Disputed
1 point

The main difference between BUSH AND OBAMA is that Bush sent troops to Iraq and Obama sent troops to Libya.

We have no troops in Libya.

Side: Yes
2 points

He is actually trying, the only flaw is that we the people tend to expect a lot out of our leaders, as many did when Obama was elected. The only reason why people even see him as a bad president is because they expect him to do so much that he is actually trying to fulfill in his presidency, since most of us thought we got a superhero who would automatically make things better. However, he is human, and we should let him do what he needs to do to help our country. For Bill Clinton, a great president, also faced this same dilemma so chances are we could have another Bill in store for our country!

Side: yes

Bill Clinton, a great president, also faced this same dilemma so chances are we could have another Bill in store for our country!

Or another George Bush ;)

Side: No
2 points

oh yes barack Obama should get reelected because,,,

heathcare reform - he was the first president to ever tackle heathcare it provided acces to heathcare and will finally get rid of the waste in heathcare and get people uninsured insured

fincial reform- made the banks do their buincess right

Side: yes
2 points

If elected, of course. I don't know who the competition is, and I'm looking for a really strong third party candidate, so I can't claim whether I will vote for him or not.

But if he wins, he wins. That's how this game is played.

Side: yes
2 points

It's either Obama or a republican. It's a true dilemma that is solved by remembering what a lousy president GW Bush was. We don't need another republican touting trickle down economics (voodoo economics). Although Obama and Bush have more in common than either democrats or republicans want to admit, I'll still pick Obama for the reason that democrats seem to be less destructive than republicans. In general, both dems and reps will screw the working class but the dems at least apologize.

Side: yes

Obama has been helping and taken control of a lot of important things that would have turned out badly. In his second term, if he gets it, he will be able to adress more and more problems.

Side: yes
2 points

yes i agree he is the awsome sauce of my day go oboma you deserve to be president and i agree with u bonquiqui

Side: yes
2 points

gogo bonquiqui i totale agree with you all u guy are raciiset he can do an amazing job and he is doing amazing to so dont start a haterad

Side: yes
2 points

now with osama dead, all the more reason to vote him for another term, or three!! :)

Side: yes

I agree...Osama's death is some proof that Obama is a good leader. He did not reveal he knew where Osama was in his campaign, which would have guaranteed his victory. This makes him an ideal president.

Side: yes
1 point

Of course! Why shouldn't he get a second term? He is sooo much better than Bush!

Side: yes
1 point

For a guy that bunch of government mafias pointing guns to his head, he stood up for the best as much as he could. I don't care about his skin, I care about his ability, education, thoughts, and sincerity.

Side: yes
1 point

yes i think that obama 'the best one yet' should be re-elected ! he is amazing and gives a better look at amarica...that was clerly no there be for!! he is amazing and if you dont like him well then your just raicist! all us canadians would love to have him!!!

Side: yes
1 point

thx bro ur amazing to ..... really theres notting to hart about obama!

Side: yes
1 point

I think that no President has managed to complete everything that they have planned in a single term, or even in two terms. Obama has done well for a first term. I think that if we can give someone like Bush two terms to produce such a sh*t storm, it is imperative to give Obama the same amount of time to try to resolve SOME of the issues.

Side: yes
1 point

He is intelligent, wise, and temperant. He has done a good job so far

Side: yes

It is now 2015 and I am so happy that I voted with the majority to re-elect Obama as President.

Side: Yes

Looking back, years from now, people could very well say, "This was the moment when American power began to recede. This was the moment when America lost its way. This was the moment when America begin to die."

http://bigdustup.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-does-our-media-support-new.html

Side: No
5 points

If someone better runs I am completely for it. Obama was only elected due to all the media hype and "young voters" who no nothing about politics to being with. If he was doing all that he could, why is it that they elected a democrat (Obama) but fought back with republicans this past election day? Nope I'm not up for all this Obama care crap. Save it! I think their is bigger fish to fry and more things to worry about than our health care system.

Side: No
Bohemian(3870) Disputed
1 point

I think their is bigger fish to fry and more things to worry about than our health care system.

The United States spends more on health-care than any other country in the World, and unpaid medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States. How can we possibly expect to manage our national deficit if we maintain this system that clearly isn't working but continues to hemorrhage debt?

Side: who is he running against
4 points

Absolutely not! He has tried to do what he said, but if you rate him based on a scorecard of how well he is implementing change, I would say he is failing.

Side: No
DaWolfman(3321) Disputed
3 points

Would you not give him any credit for anything he has done so far? Or are you against him 100%?

Do you feel like his health care bill was a mistake?

Would you not also say that he entered the presidency in an extremely rough time?

In my opinion I say we give him the next four, he is not nearly as bad as the eight years that preceded him. I feel like he is trying to implement change, and do what he set out to do in the beginning of his campaign.

I really see no president that is going to do a better job ( at least that has a chance of getting elected ) than Obama, unless you had someone in mind that had a hope of winning?

Side: yes
8 points

Would you not give him any credit for anything he has done so far?

Sure, he should be granted credit for instituting progress towards socialism.

Or are you against him 100%?

Correct.

Would you not also say that he entered the presidency in an extremely rough time?

Sure, to a certain degree. Only because of bad government policy.

he is not nearly as bad as the eight years that preceded him.

What was so bad about the last eight years besides the war?

I feel like he is trying to implement change, and do what he set out to do in the beginning of his campaign.

Doesn't mean that it is change for GOOD. He never said Change was going to be for the better.

I really see no president that is going to do a better job ( at least that has a chance of getting elected ) than Obama, unless you had someone in mind that had a hope of winning?

Ron Paul

Side: No
4 points

Here Here! every president with outstanding performance, pleasing personality, and with high-educated standard is qualified and deserving in its position like Obama.

Side: yes

No Way, I much prefer an actual monkey.----------------------

Side: No
4 points

No! No more politics as usual! I want someone in office who will push for less government, more freedom for the people, less taxation, humbly take up the office of President, someone who is invested in this country personally (i.e. John Boehner, he was crying because of his elevation to speaker, he has a heart for this country and it shows). President Obama will always hold my respect but I do not want him in the white house again.

Side: No
Bohemian(3870) Disputed
1 point

John Boehner, he was crying because of his elevation to speaker, he has a heart for this country and it shows

John Boehner is a tool for the religious right.

Side: Yes
4 points

being a good speech maker and being a good president are two different things, our 'leader' has seamed to have jumbled them up a bit. I could ramble on about wanting to change things in our country but the fact of the matter is that he has yet to change anything except raising our taxes more. No, no, absolutely not.

Side: No
4 points

I have no trust for Obama anymore! I can't trust somebody who believes its okay to build a mosqe at ground zero in New York!

Side: No
4 points

He should have never been elected to start with! He is anti-America!

Side: No
3 points

Can Obongo show proof of his birth? What has he accomplished besides bringing Hollywood into the White House? Would you continue to like the USA to look weak and frail in a world of mighty wolves? Would you like Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Kim Jong II and Hugo Chavez to have more nuclear weapons than you? Would you like your First Lady to come to your home to tell your children what you can and can't feed them? Would you like your First Lady to have a penis? Did Bill Clinton deserve a second term? Burning question: Would you vote for Steve Urkel if he ran for President?

Side: No
aveskde(1935) Disputed
5 points

Can Obongo show proof of his birth?

He already did. Unless you have an argument of substance and not one of absence, then you're just wasting everyone's time.

Side: yes
3 points

Can Obongo show proof of his birth? What has he accomplished besides bringing Hollywood into the White House? Would you continue to like the USA to look weak and frail in a world of mighty wolves? Would you like Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Kim Jong II and Hugo Chavez to have more nuclear weapons than you? Would you like your First Lady to come to your home to tell your children what you can and can't feed them? Would you like your First Lady to have a penis? Did Bill Clinton deserve a second term? Do you want to continue the White Genocide? Burning question: Would you vote for Steve Urkel if he ran for President?

Side: No
Raines4Cngrs(3) Disputed
5 points

I have wonderful news for you. YES! It can be shown, and it has! Oh my gosh, I am so happy for you because now you can stop doubting and start believing. Right? Or... or are you going to keep doubting even when it has been shown multiple times in the media and on fact checking websites? Are you going to keep doubting even when the newspaper article announcing his birth was shown? Oh. Oh ok, I just maybe thought you genuinely were curious as to whether he was born here or not. I did not realize you simply believed he wasn't born here just because it's convenient for your position. Ok, makes sense now.

Side: yes
3 points

Obama's birth certificate has been virtually ignored by a decent amount of people. It calls to mind a study that concerns people becoming more impassioned regarding a subject that they believe they are right in when presented with contradictory evidence. There's more context to the experiment but that is besides the point. It reflects an emotional state of politicking in America, rather than one based on logic.

Side: yes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QdyLOUHz-A

but I suppose proof has little affect on ardent denial...

Now what ;)

Side: No
3 points

No absolutley no because he is communist marxist who has tried to destroy america from the inside on seperate occasions and if re elected be sure to live like slaves to a communist goverment

Side: No

Unless by second term , you mean prosecuted for treason then hanged.

And his soul devouring monster of a wife.

Side: No
4 points

If we have any luck at all, the First Wookie will devour him before the next election!

Side: No
niggypimp(1) Disputed
1 point

Please do not talk if you do not have clear logical explanations to support your points, whining as a baby does not help the debate at all.

Side: yes
3 points

No, he should be one term and done president. What has he done, but increase the national debt? He ran on the platform that he was going to create more jobs to stimulate the economy. Well? No, he has been in the office for over 2 years now and I really don't see how he has helped the american people. He didn't get my vote in 2008 and he won't get in in 2012 either.

Side: No
2 points

look obama has failed the american people from these few examples

the goverment takeover of heathcare

failed stimulus

outragous spending and has spent more then georrge bush did in 8 years then in 3

the biggest set of regulation on fincil market

made it arder for americans to pay their enegry bills

and much , much more

Side: No
2 points

No his plan has failed miserably no reason to let a failure stay in office. But let me point out that yes he may be trying his best but he still failed. America has never had a president that was out to destroy the nation, he sincerely believes in what he is doing but it does not work. Therefore new president.

Side: No
2 points

no, has he really done what he said he was going to do? to some extent, but not the way he promised

Side: No
2 points

No. Simply said he is a horrible president. Boo Obama. He hasn't done anything good for us.

Side: No
2 points

People that support Obama, either support the NWO or don't pay attention to politics.

Side: No
2 points

Absolutely not.He is not doing anything ideologically and politically new.

Side: No
2 points

No No No...No way, no how! He has been the absolute worst President ever...We need to get him out of there!

Side: No
1 point

We should have a Libertarian president. The Libertarians are the only ones who actually do what they say they will do.

Side: No
1 point

Please somebody own me on this....

My answer is going to be lengthy

I have a few problems with the question.

First of all the question is untimely. We don't know who his competitors will be( even if we think we can guess)

Second of all, consequently we have no idea what the competitors ideas or arguments will be.

The answer is neither Yes nor No, it's "I don't know". We have to wait till the evidence is in.

There is a problem with this as well. The problem is that most political reforms don't have impact till years after they have been approved. This makes it hard to evaluate certain decisions; while lending reinforcement to the saying "Hindsight is 20/20.

But evolution has blessed us with the gift of playing out scenarios in our heads before they actually happen.

Before I get off topic let's look at some logical facts. Money and value are imaginary ideas that we give to certain attributes of life. Of course one is the physical manifestation of the other. Money is supposed to equal value. How do we determine value? There are three main reasons that I can think of.

1. Rareness (as in gold or diamonds) These are just elements arranged in certain patterns that we give value to mostly for aesthetic appeal. They are both useful in other ways, but this is not normally valued over aesthetic appeal, thus diamonds cost fucking a lot.

2. The next is effort. Money is meant to be a measure of effort that can be traded amongst others for their effort. I think this is a good thing, but at the same time it makes me sad. Large hunks of metal decorate college campuses all over as sculptures that could have been put to use as cars or something else, yet they are valued more for they're aesthetic appeal (see example 1.). Despite this waste,(and many others) money is a good system. It measures our irrational and rational feelings towards certain things, and we can exchange our effort for what we value with a neutral measurement of currency.

3. Originality. This may be a new invention or a new idea that we have our evolution given foresight to value. It is also in a sense rare like example one. It may also require a great deal of effort like example two. Thus originality is valuable.

(a quick side note: don't confuse this with harmful original ideas like cannibalism or religion. They are both original but neither is truly helpful, if not completely detrimental.)

What am I getting at?

MONEY and SUSTAINABILITY!

That supposed measure of effort that we have to trade for the things we want. The more we print the less it's worth. (the less rare, the less valuable; i.e. if gold was everywhere we would have no value for it...after all it's everywhere)

Actually then maybe it would be valued for what it's actually good for...

The point is that, if we have a standard for the measure of effort to pay for the things we want, and need; this standard cannot be allowed to change. What good is a standard for measurement if it can be changed at inconsistent intervals? This leaves no measure.

If Obama is willing to stop changing the standard of effort, i.e. stop printing money. Then yes I would be willing to give him a second term, however this seems unlikely.

He seems to want to use a scalpel because he doesn't have the balls to use an axe when needed. He can print more money and the standard will change in amounts of numbers, but THE EFFORT DOES NOT CHANGE! The effort will remain the same or most likely grow stronger regardless, if not because of, the variable change in the measure of effort. i.e. speculation in the trading of currency (measure of effort) on the stock market. As well as deep questioning about the worth of everything. When a standard changes, all that were measured by that standard must be re-evaluated.

Once again I say the answer to the question is a matter of how he handles the standard of money and how sustainable it stays as a measure of effort; but I remain skeptical...

I will elaborate further if I even get a reply to this argument.

Side: No
anathema(2) Disputed
1 point

I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to follow-up your lengthy argument with a lengthy redress.

While it is true that we do not know who will face-off against Pres. Obama, we can have a pretty good idea. Any of the republican candidates mentioned so far, Palin, Pawlenty, Huckabee, are more right than Bush or Obama, but they have managed to build small contingents of vehement supporters. Some of the possible candidates still question Pres. Obama's citizenship. That is simply ignorance. I would hate to see the country fall back into the lap of an embarrassingly inept executive.

Now I cannot argue that Pres. Obama is much different than the last president. Mr. Bush should not be defended for he was a reckless spender (Medicaid, Bail out), drove us into two extended wars, led us into massive debt, was utterly divisive, and spoke much more like Ford than Lincoln or Clinton for that matter. Has Obama (stimulus package, health care, war in Libya) done much to differentiate himself from his predecessor? I can't say that he has. However, we would at least have the possibility of change with a democrat in office. Republicans are called conservatives for a reason.

What our government needs to do is tackle the core issues that no one is willing to address: the poverty gap and incarceration rates. I'll briefly address part of the poverty gap issue by looking at the top money earners in our country.

The extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, enacted by a Democratic-controlled Congress in December with the approval of the Obama administration, pumps $700 billion over the next ten years into the pockets of the rich. Reclaiming two years of that tax windfall would eliminate all of the state budget deficits combined.

Total compensation at Wall Street banks and securities firms last year hit a record $135 billion, according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, on all-time-high revenue of $417 billion. The recipients of the Wall Street bailout could bail out the states out of their own pockets.

The 400 richest individuals in the United States dispose of a staggering $1.37 trillion in assets, an average of nearly $3.5 billion apiece. A levy of 10 percent on the resources of these billionaires would also erase the deficits of all 50 states.

US corporations are currently sitting on $2 trillion in cash, refusing to hire workers despite collecting tax cuts that are supposed to be incentives to do so. A levy of 10 percent on that idle cash would provide enough money to eliminate not only the deficits of the states, but the deficits of all cities and local governments too, as well as preserving the jobs of hundreds of thousands of public employees.

Hedge funds assets rose to $1.92 trillion in 2010, the highest ever, up from $1.18 trillion at the beginning of the year. Given a standard earnings formula of 2 percent of total assets plus 20 percent of the increase, hedge fund bosses stood to collect roughly $186 billion in personal income. An 80 percent tax on that income—less than the percentage rate on multimillionaires levied under the Eisenhower administration—would produce more than enough revenue to put all 50 states in the black. (It should be pointed out that the top hedge fund manager, John Paulson, had a personal net profit of more than $5 billion in 2010, while more than a dozen hedge fund bosses had personal incomes above $2 billion and many more took in over $1 billion).

This is a small portion of the discrepancies. I haven't mentioned the top paid CEOs of the big six health insurance providers. For that information I suggest looking at the Sick for Profit website.

That's why I think we should stick with Obama no matter who opposes him, unless it's someone like Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders. Then I'd go with Sanders.

Side: yes
1 point

Oh Yea, there is something obvious that I forgot in my original point, or points:

Borrowing money. Borrowing money from people who print money and devalue their currency is just as bad a printing money. Actually it's worse, it' puts you in debt the your borrowers i.e. China. Only if every country is free of debt to another will they truly be free.

Just like there are casualties of ware over territory,security, goods and other things, now there is a different war over debt that may require casualties in the name of true freedom. Though these will not be as obvious as soldiers on the battlefeild. They will be the ones who die due to cuts in medical programs and welfare programs. Medicare, Medicaid, and social security are the biggest share of our debt and we keep borrowing money from countries with no working standards or conditions to avoid the inevitable. The pay out that will leave us all broke. When the elderly outnumber the people working to support them. Or better their bills outnumber the wages of those who support them.

Freedom comes at a cost. Only those who are willing to make the sacrifices will get it.

So far I see Obama is willing to make some sacrifices, but not the tough ones. Tough ones are required to climb out of the hole which we have dug. The borrowing has to stop. The printing has to stop. Or we will never get out.

I'm sorry that's just what logic dictates. Once again I ask... somebody own me on this... I want your best arguments seriously....

Side: No
1 point

His war with Libya is what has damaged his standing in Africa for good!

Side: No
1 point

If he makes abortion illegal then ill re elect him. Abortion is MURDER. A fetus is a human

Side: Maybe
DaWolfman(3321) Disputed
2 points

Why bring abortion into this debate... there are plenty of abortion debates on this site where I am sure your opinion would be more appreciated than here on a debate regarding the current president of the US.

Side: yes
1 point

Obama, in my opinion, should have never been elected. He was only voted in because of the hype that the media and people created around him. He hasn't done anything for our country and if he says that next term he will, it's just another lie. I don't believe any of it.

Side: No