CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I wanted to believe he would be a good president, but he is likely the worst! He has not had a budget in 3.5 years, passes illegal legislation, and has a poor policy on terror.
Damn, I wish I could get paid like he does to suck so badly!
SO, abandoning war efforts before the country is ready to take over and instead letting the terrorists take over and prevail is being more effective on terror? Not a chance!
abandoning weve been in afghanistan for 11 years, iraq for nearly as long, how long do you want these wars to last>? at least obama got the head terrorists and bin laden and ghadaffi unlike bush who got no one. its time to leave and rebuild the nation at home
lets see what others did? talk up war with violent propoganda and incite all our enemies....label the middle east an axis of evil? thats some mindless way to promote peace, then use the dodgy dossier and its endless lies about weapons of mass destruction which never even existed. then use the war tv channels to promote the war agenda in order to make more money for coroporate weapons producers etc etc the game is up the whole world sees this the disgusting charade the rpeublicans have become and I am a right winger myself by these evil scum disgust me. theyd blow up the world to make money
weve been in afghanistan 11 years nearly 12. were still there for a few more years. how much is enough? iraq not far off, thousands and thousands of americans died, 1 million iraqis died, thousands of coalition troops and how many more injured or had their lives destroyed over a pack of lies?
obama came into the biggest recession for 80 years, a nation wold out and bought off by the corporate giants, 2 unwinnable wars and terrorism on the rise instead of on the fall. obama finished what bush totally failed to do, he got the terrorist leaders, he got ghadaffi, he got bin laden...but he also preached peace , tolerance and negotiation too...war for obama is the last resort not the first. afghanistan has been trained for 11 years. you cannot defeat a nation like that its been tried for centuries. all you can do is improve it, strengthen it, keep a presence there. weve forgotten our mission statement though most soldiers dont even know why we are there anymore
obama wants to create greater peace and respect. he also wnats to make america stronger at home and rebalance the economy. his stable hand has allowed the stock market to double in value in his reign too. so millions have benefitted from obamas more peaceful and measured intelligent approach
He's not the worst president in US history. Jimmy Carter probably takes the wrap on that one.
Obama and Bush have expanded the powers of Federal government the most since FDR. The national debt has increased more under Obama than any other president, and if the Supreme Court doesn't rule Obamacare unconstitutional, the national debt will exceed anything anyone could have dreamed of in the 90s.
So I'm very much against the Obama administration, but I wouldn't consider him technically the WORST.
I don't deny that Obama isn't amazing (I only support him now as the best of a bad lot), but with the debt, that's hardly the most accurate way of looking at it.
While it is true that the debt has increased under Obama more than anyone else, trillions of that comes from Bush's spending in Iraq/Afghanistan, the payments were delayed so it wouldn't be Bush's problem. Link
If you look at what the two actually spent, you'll notice a massive difference, and yet people still give Obama responsibility for things that he had no control over. I do not see this as fair in any way.
The first article is not false? Why then, why I search the authors name in Google, do I see, on the first page, two articles specifically stating that he's wrong when it comes to debt + Obama? Links: 1 & 2
I liked your second article more, it seemed less biased, and it did raise two good points. First of all, Obama is supposed to spend more in a recession, government spending should counter the business cycle. Bush had no real reason to continue the deficit in the way that he should have, whilst Obama had the biggest recession in modern history. To get back to your original point, of how Obama has increased debt more than any other president, I was simply pointing out that it's hardly a fair comparison.
Second of all, Obama's tried to increase tax on the upper classes, and the corporations, and been blocked by Republicans. Again, it's hardly fair to call him 'the worst president ever' when the results you are using against him are not of his own making.
But, as I said originally, I don't think Obama deserves all of the love that he gets from the 'Left'/liberals/democrats, whatever you want to call them. He is currently the best of a bad lot. I remember looking through the official comparisons of the various candidates economic projections, and yes, it is true that Ron Pauls cut the deficit most quickly, and therefore debt, but it did so at the expense of the economy. The Libertarians look to 'save' the economy, but at the expense of the people who it is supposed to help, and this is where I feel that Obama does well, and the Republicans do neither.
Those two links don't say that he's lying, they say that he's misrepresenting information... which as my second link shows is the case for both knoller and the people who attack Knoller.
Obama is supposed to spend more in a recession
Keynsian economics is not the consensus. Many believe that increased spending is never a good idea, especially under a recession. Letting the largest of corporations fail is not only supported by Right Wing economists but by even some of the Left-Wing revolutionaries (Occupy Wall Street).
Bush had no real reason to continue the deficit in the way that he should have
Bush had reasons, including the War and humanitarian aid for Africa and India (yeah... people forget about that part for some weird reason). I disagree with Bush's fiscal policies as well as Obama's.
Obama's tried to increase tax on the upper classes, and the corporations, and been blocked by Republicans.
Obama supports the Bush tax cuts. He did not try to end them in any way.
it's hardly fair to call him 'the worst president ever'
I already pointed out that that title belongs to Jimmy Carter.
He is currently the best of a bad lot.
Even Romney wishes to use the Ryan plan, which would save AT LEAST 5 trillion dollars. And if Romney were to use Ryan's earlier plans, healthcare would be solved and spending would be moderately decreased even more. However, the Ryan plan is not as good as it SHOULD be.
it is true that Ron Pauls cut the deficit most quickly, and therefore debt, but it did so at the expense of the economy.
It's not just about cutting spending, Ron Paul wishes to eliminate most Federal powers that keep our economy at a stranglehold. Federal spending and regulation is what got us here in the first place. The War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the Federal Reserve, etc. Obama is just another politician with the same BS that Bush brought us. The idea that people truly believe him to be a candidate of "change" is, at times, frustrating.
The Libertarians look to 'save' the economy, but at the expense of the people who it is supposed to help
How are they hurting the people it "helps." Federal manipulation of the economy has only led us to here. Once again, the problem is big government. We put so much faith into a group of people who think that manipulation and control of free individuals is the answer. It's a hegemony of slavery.
Those two links don't say that he's lying, they say that he's misrepresenting information... which as my second link shows is the case for both knoller and the people who attack Knoller.
They speak against the validness of the article, and portray good arguments. Considering there is a lot of problems with the sources of information in regards to this issue, I feel it is relevant to point out misinformation where it is apparent.
Keynsian economics is not the consensus. Many believe that increased spending is never a good idea, especially under a recession. Letting the largest of corporations fail is not only supported by Right Wing economists but by even some of the Left-Wing revolutionaries (Occupy Wall Street).
I'm not even talking about how to get out of a recession, I'm talking about the very necessities of his office. In a recession, were millions become unemployed, he has to pay billions more than anyone else in the history of US presidents just in unemployment benefits, keeping the people alive. And I have no one argue that government spending should be high in a boom, such as Bush did, the second highest debt creator.
Bush had reasons, including the War and humanitarian aid for Africa and India (yeah... people forget about that part for some weird reason). I disagree with Bush's fiscal policies as well as Obama's.
The war was his choice to enter, and considering the flaky reasons for it, I do not give him any relapse on the trillions it cost. Considering the US' abysmal foreign aid (as a percentage of national income) history, its effects are miniscule on such large amounts of money.
Obama supports the Bush tax cuts. He did not try to end them in any way.
He said he would not have signed the bill if it did not include "other extensions of relief that were also set to expire." Among other provisions, he cited the extensions of unemployment benefits and tuition tax credits, as well as new tax incentives for businesses.
Obama acknowledged that "there are some elements of this legislation that I don't like," and some that congressional Republicans and Democrats don't like. "That's the nature of compromise, yielding on something each of us cares about to move forward on what all of us care about," he said. "And right now, what all of us care about is growing the American economy and creating jobs for the American people."
But yes, I'll concede, I wasn't aware of that. However, considering the whole Buffet tax debate (estimated to save 47 billion by 2022), I would disagree.
Even Romney wishes to use the Ryan plan, which would save AT LEAST 5 trillion dollars.
Ryan's plans were the ones that led to this recession (yes, he designed Bush's budget too). Considering the widespread criticism of his plan, I would hesitate before supporting it, yet alone attaching such massive claims to it.
It's not just about cutting spending, Ron Paul wishes to eliminate most Federal powers that keep our economy at a stranglehold.
This is what annoys me about Ron Paul. Some of his policies are fantastic, ending the war on drugs/terror, all that bullshit, but at the same time, he applies his unconventional ideals to everything, and it would just be a bad thing overall. But, that's unrelated.
How are they hurting the people it "helps".
Social support is supposed to help those who need it the most. Reducing spending on social support, and taxation, increases inequality, and disproportionately affects the poor.
I feel it is relevant to point out misinformation where it is apparent.
Good thing I provided the second link to show how it's still relevant.
In a recession, were millions become unemployed, he has to pay billions more than anyone else in the history of US presidents just in unemployment benefits, keeping the people alive.
Even if you want to use the expense of welfare argument, that is not NEARLY the amount that went up in spending under the Obama administration. Unless Corporate welfare counts...
As well, Military spending and increased subsidies for various businesses. And continued Bank support, provisions for various organizations. More importantly, the unnecessary welfare spending that continues to rise but provide no benefit but only to create government dependence.
All of this at the expense of small businesses that try to compete with large businesses in a heavily regulated market.
The war was his choice to enter,
One that Obama continues, and even expanded by bombing Libya and progressing the disaster in Pakistan.
Buffet tax debate (estimated to save 47 billion by 2022), I would disagree.
Which will do practically nothing to cover the costs that he continues to spike. It's a red herring.
Ryan's plans were the ones that led to this recession
I was referring to his proposal on Healthcare, not something a decade ago (that actually also led to economic prosperity. If it wasn't for the war, Bush would have a much better legacy in economics).
he applies his unconventional ideals to everything, and it would just be a bad thing overall.
His ideas are consistent and rational. the're based on expanding wealth and diminishing most government powers that have put us here in the first place. People seem to act like government is so important that it's okay to allow it to choose winners and losers (as it has done through regulations and restrictions). Ron Paul and other Libertarian thinkers believe that individuals benefit the most when they have choice over what to do with their own property.
Reducing spending on social support, and taxation, increases inequality, and disproportionately affects the poor.
Is this why welfare reform resulted in economic prosperity? Is this why FDR almost made the Depression worse until the War started?
If there is any kind of spending that has ever helped economy and the prosperity of citizens it has historically been Military Spending. Yet that is one of the MANY things that government has boosted its spending in, and even so, just because military has been successful in the past doesn't mean that it's the only way.
Even so, helping those who truly can't help themselves is still a small portion of government spending.
edit: The Soviet Union had industrial progression, but this was also, technically, military spending. As for their agriculture, 27% of the food provided for the people was from private farm owners, even though they took up 1% of the total agricultural community of Russia.
Historically, as we see, overall wealth goes up with privatization, no with government welfare.
I agree that some welfare may still be necessary for those who need it most, but at the rate it is now (and how both Obama and Romney want to continue it) is not going to help increase the standard of living.
Good thing I provided the second link to show how it's still relevant.
Good thing that that article said that the entire 'comparing debt' idea was stupid, and that they're all as bad as each other.
Even if you want to use the expense of welfare argument, that is not NEARLY the amount that went up in spending under the Obama administration. Unless Corporate welfare counts...
Of course, but the $700 billion spent on stimulus, increased welfare spending, and decreased tax revenue, it would make a big part of the difference.
One that Obama continues, and even expanded by bombing Libya and progressing the disaster in Pakistan.
I haven't personally, but I bet if you compare the costs of conflicts that the two leaders started, you would see a massive difference. However, yes, I agree, Obama's foreign policy is not perfect. Part of why I have repeatedly claimed that he is simply the best of a bad lot.
Which will do practically nothing to cover the costs that he continues to spike. It's a red herring.
43 billion is not a small amount, and yet it is Republicans who continue to block it. This is not Obama's fault.
I was referring to his proposal on Healthcare, not something a decade ago (that actually also led to economic prosperity. If it wasn't for the war, Bush would have a much better legacy in economics).
I agree, I was saying I don't trust him because of what happened a decade ago. And Bush's deregulation (under Ryan's plan) lead to the market crash and the recession we're still in. Yes, the times of prosperity were good, and Bush's, but that doesn't mean it was a good thing overall.
Even so, helping those who truly can't help themselves is still a small portion of government spending.
And yet the plan you support feels that cutting this small portion of government spending is necessary and justified. I'm not arguing the left v right economic perspectives, I'm simply arguing that cutting all forms of social support will hurt more those who need it the most. I don't see why that's hard to accept.
Good thing that that article said that the entire 'comparing debt' idea was stupid, and that they're all as bad as each other.
That's more like it, recognizing that he's not such a Messiah after all. That's all I wanted.
Of course, but the $700 billion spent on stimulus, increased welfare spending, and decreased tax revenue, it would make a big part of the difference.
Money isn't spent on less taxing. that just means there is less money to spend.
As for stimulus, this does not help those who can't help themselves. this helps keep irresponsible corporations in power.
And increased welfare spending is not the answer, as LBJ and Nixon have shown. Instead, proposals by Bill Clinton, JFK, and Reagan have gotten more people off of government dependence and more independent, as well as leaving room for the private sector to increase wealth for all Americans (as it historically does).
Part of why I have repeatedly claimed that he is simply the best of a bad lot.
If the bad lot doesn't include Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, both for completely ending the turmoil in the Middle East, you'd be right.
And Bush's deregulation (under Ryan's plan) lead to the market crash and the recession we're still in.
False. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were irresponsible in their rewards to banks that did the wrong thing. Subsidization and inflation encouraged the banks even more to give out money to poor people who can't afford to give it back. The housing market regulators focused more on pushing ideological goals than thinking about what could actually profit the housing market. In fact, the housing market was encouraged, by government regulators, to over-supply and care little for their expenses (after all, they were being subsidized to an atomic level). Bush should have gotten government COMPLETELY out of the housing market. However, this wasn't the case, and folks like Ron Paul knew this would happen.
but that doesn't mean it was a good thing overall.
Clearly Bush should have listened to Ron Paul instead of the ideologues pushing for bigger government.
necessary and justified.
based on the assertions of Catholic Bishops?
They complain more about the subsidies going to farmers, which is, of course, wrong. However, Obama is not eliminating subsidies, as Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would.
That's more like it, recognizing that he's not such a Messiah after all. That's all I wanted.
Just to make you happy, I don't really like Obama that much, he's failed in a lot of aspects that I thought he'd do better, drones in Pakistan and others, hasn't pushed Republicans far enough to help the economy, and hasn't done shit to stop everything with Iran. I also remember watching a 2008 video of him speaking for ending the war on weed, yet it's only gotten worse, from what I've heard. I just don't like people calling him the devil, because he isn't.
Money isn't spent on less taxing. that just means there is less money to spend.
Debt is created by a deficit. Less taxing means more debt.
And increased welfare spending is not the answer, as LBJ and Nixon have shown. Instead, proposals by Bill Clinton, JFK, and Reagan have gotten more people off of government dependence and more independent, as well as leaving room for the private sector to increase wealth for all Americans (as it historically does).
Increased welfare spending was mandatory, it takes years to change the systems, and as far as I'm aware, it largely falls outside of his mandate (state law, not federal, I'd assume?).
If the bad lot doesn't include Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, both for completely ending the turmoil in the Middle East, you'd be right.
As I've said before, I like this part of them, but disagree with others. If I could mix and match, I could find most of my views in US politicians, I just can't find anyone who has all of them in one.
Not compared to the debt and massive spending that it's trying to quell
Agreed. Regardless, he's making an effort, and being blocked off, for no real reason.
False
Whilst I agree that there was a large extent of government failure after deregulation, were there not deregulation in the first place, there would not have been the opportunity for CBO's, the abuse of the housing market, and the reckless behaviour that you described. You wish to completely deregulate the banks? This seems unwise, bankers operate in their own self interest, not in that of the bank, and not in that of the country. Remember that the heads of banks who brought about the recession got hundreds of millions of dollars, that sort of behaviour would only become more common, with people not being held responsible for their actions.
Based on the assertions of Catholic Bishops?
I was simply using them as an example. I have many complaints of Republican behaviour, and I can only imagine that this budget is just more of the same.
His policies on the War on Drugs are even more authoritarian than Bush's.
Less taxing means more debt.
But it is not spending, which actually creates debt. Taxing is unnecessary to continue spending. Government will spend as much as it wants and will tax people as much as they want. We can't just say "increase taxes to reduce debt" when the debt could have been avoided all together. Once again, it's a red herring.
it largely falls outside of his mandate
Then why did you bring it up in the first place?
Bill Clinton, however, signed welfare reform. This was a Federal act.
I like this part of them, but disagree with others
yet you're not specific on how their economics will hurt anyone. You've avoided pointing to specific, first saying "welfare is necessary" and then saying "well, Obama has no control over welfare."
Now, economics may not be your strong suit (it was once something i hardly considered), but if you're going to say that you don't like their economic views, you should be more specific on what is wrong with them.
Regardless, he's making an effort, and being blocked off, for no real reason
Not according to the evidence. The best you've got is that Republicans are blocking the Buffet rule, even though I already described how the Buffet rule is a "red herring."
You wish to completely deregulate the banks?
It's about getting government away from the banks all together. The banks, how they currently operate, could not survive without government involvement. They rely on subsidies, standardized currency, human controlled inflation and regulation to keep themselves in power. Without it they would hold little power over our wealth and currency. Currently, the banks dictate most money powers. They will continue to dictate as long as government stays involved with the affairs of the banks. This isn't about letting the large trample the small, it's about removing the power-source for this monstrosity that government created in the first place. Big government is the problem here, not lack of it.
bankers operate in their own self interest, not in that of the bank, and not in that of the country.
A bank without government would NEED to operate in the interest of the consumers or else it will attract none. Currently people feel that they need banks. While the privatization of banks seemed like a good idea during the transitional period between Centralized and non-centralized banks, what ended up happening was government assisted greedy men. You can not expect the private sector to do what it does best if government is still involved, as it always has been. The banks are protected from competitive currency because they hold all currency rights. The banks are paid by governments to continue being banks, which removes most financial liability (especially when you're large enough to "need" a bailout). And the banks are encouraged by leaders (government bureaucrats like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to make poor decisions but given money to make up for those poor decisions. This isn't some magical imbecile who happens to be running a bank, this is a guy basically being given money to make poor decisions with all of our money. It was inevitable with government involvement, as Ron Paul accurately predicted.
Remember that the heads of banks who brought about the recession got hundreds of millions of dollars, that sort of behaviour would only become more common,
Not if you eliminate government involvement in the banking market.
I was simply using them as an example.
A terrible one.
I have many complaints of Republican behaviour, and I can only imagine that this budget is just more of the same.
I'm sure you do, people complain a lot. The importance is substance, though.
But it is not spending, which actually creates debt.
If it's a red herring, and irrelevant to the economy, then are you saying that taxation doesn't matter? Even if we differ in defintions of debt, and money flow, it has the same effect to the argument.
Then why did you bring it up in the first place?
I brought it up to say that he was forced to pay more, it was mandatory.
But if you're going to say that you don't like their economic views
In the simplest of terms, an economic system is simply nothing more than a system of allocation of resources, goods, and services. Pure capitalism cares only about the number of dollars you will put towards something. As there is not equality of opportunity, this is not fair, those on the bottom have less, and not only from their own actions. Those with money rule, the corporatism we have seen recently within US politics is arguably nothing more than the merging of politics and the free market. Those who do not have money deserve protection, they need food, water, shelter, and other similar necessities. Leaving them open to abuse by the rich is not what I think should happen, and that is what Libertarians would do - leave everyone to the benefits, and abuse, that others put on them through trade.
I love the idea of people being completely free to do what they want with their own money, their own time, their own labour, but people are not free, they are forced to work, they need an income to survive.
Not according to the evidence. The best you've got is that Republicans are blocking the Buffet rule
Which evidence? I seem to remember you posting a link that showed that Obama is being blocked from increasing any taxes (the last few paragraphs).
It's about getting government away from the banks all together.
Just like Iceland did? The government ended sold their state bank about ten years ago I believe, outside banks came in, made loads of money for a while, everyone was happy, but they were just part of the problem, put no safeguards in place, acted recklessly, and were destroyed in the recession. Now the prime minister is being put onto trial for gross negligence (the only head of state to be formally punished as part of the recession). It's worth remembering that the banks that did this were new to the country (all but one), they were not used to government involvement. They simply speculated, loaned out money, told everyone it was going fine, had massive rates of leverage, and then it all fell to shit.
So no, I don't agree that deregulating the banks is a good idea, either economically, or from a humanitarian sense (banks in many countries now refuse to lend to anyone those who need it, because they see it as 'high risk'. I understand taking a harsher tone on lending, but blocking off everyone, without considering them, is bad for people. They now only lend to businesses with capital to pay them back for sure).
A terrible one.
I'm sorry I trust bishops to stand up for the poor, it's not like they spend their life following a doctrine that tells them to do exactly that.
But in all honesty, I haven't read around it too much, and don't have time to do so now, however, it's not hard to find criticisms from other people in a better position to judge it than me.
It's more about the tyranny behind taxation. In the terrible shit-storm that government has created thus far, it is almost impossible to eliminate most taxes today. However, we should be progressing past the need for taxation all together. Create a new system dependent on proper justification for spending and taxation (if necessary).
The taxes today are irresponsible and incomprehensible by average Americans. Many people have to pay someone just so they don't accidentally miss any payments. The tax bracket is better now than it has been at times, but it is unrealistic. Taxes on Capital Gains are basically taxing the same income twice.
Taxes for subsidizing wheat and corn, and products made by wheat and corn are taxed. Most states have sales tax asking that people pay the government if they wish to buy an item. Taxes on property, saying that you can't even have shelter without paying the government.
This is not proper and it is, in a moral sense, evil. The idea that an authority figure can charge you for buying something from someone else is kind of ridiculous, yet it is currently the case.
So it's not so wise to just say "yeah, taxes should go up because what about the debt?" The debt is from irresponsible spending from the government. The government is now asking us to pay for their mistakes. Furnishings that don't even benefit most of us. TJ called this shit tyrannical for a reason.
Pure capitalism cares only about the number of dollars you will put towards something.
The number of dollars and the strength of that dollar depends heavily on government. Higher inflation rates and higher tax rates makes business more desperate. People do not end their pursuit of profit just because government has made things more expensive for them. They will simply pass the expenses unto the consumer, as we have seen with the healthcare and agricultural businesses.
As there is not equality of opportunity, this is not fair, those on the bottom have less, and not only from their own actions.
As shown, historically (as I've pointed out a few times already), private endeavors succeed far more in spreading wealth across the nation than public efforts. This is because government has no concern for efficiency. While welfare and social services may be for noble reasons, they have been unsuccessful in getting people out of the slums. Allowing businesses to operate unrestricted creates growth. More goods and services are provided at a cheaper rate because the business men want to make these items cheaply. They don't want expensive items. Expensive items mean less consumers.
As well, government efforts have created the great disproportion of wealth (historically). It goes all the way back to the bourgeoisie and we see it today with the monopolies created solely by government. The largest of corporations owe most of their strength to government regulations and restrictions that have hurt small business, subsidization and contracts that has chosen winners, and ridiculous business taxes that small businesses couldn't keep up with.
Those with money rule, the corporatism we have seen recently within US politics is arguably nothing more than the merging of politics and the free market.
The "corporatist" legislation includes major regulations on the market. Government should not have the power to put such restrictions on individuals, yet we give it that power by claims of non-trust for the free market. Free markets is very far from corporatism.
Those who do not have money deserve protection, they need food, water, shelter, and other similar necessities.
Even if we look to a futuristic utopia where the Free Market has prevailed over tyrannical government, government's place will still be to provide basic needs (security, vouchers for food and healthcare) at a much cheaper and efficient rate. However, government currently is a bureaucratic mess and the only defense that people can have for it all is the fear of an alternative that has never done harm (in fact, 'regression' towards free markets has done wonders for the economies of the USSR and China).
Vouchers (like food stamps, or the Paul Ryan healthcare plan) are cheaper and allow the market to do what it does best, compete for customers. It's a system of welfare that is efficient and I have no problem with it. That is currently, however, not what government does.
I love the idea of people being completely free to do what they want with their own money, their own time, their own labour, but people are not free, they are forced to work, they need an income to survive.
Hardly. The expense of most food industries comes from heavy regulation and taxation. One is not allowed to sell food without going through months of expensive protocol. How can a poor person in a poor neighborhood afford to do that or keep up with all business regulations and fees? This is what impoverishes the people the most.
A neighborhood is unable to bring in resources and capital because government, basically, will not allow them.
I seem to remember you posting a link that showed that Obama is being blocked from increasing any taxes
as explained, the Buffet Rule is a "red herring."
The government ended sold their state bank about ten years ago I believe, outside banks came in, made loads of money for a while, everyone was happy, but they were just part of the problem, put no safeguards in place, acted recklessly, and were destroyed in the recession.
Way to leave out the most important part. When the recession was occurring, the Icelandic government PANICKED and made drastic action believing that the banks wouldn't be able to handle the downfall of the European Union's dollar (the EU had much to do with this, sir). Iceland surrendered ownership of their banks to government regulators and this is where all hell broke loose. Now, the development of the banks was already a fault of government, as government, as I explained before, should have NOTHING TO DO with the banks. No start up help, no subsidies, no regulations, no nothing. Iceland would not have been able to invest so much power into three banks if they had completely avoided that market. As I've stated, it is better to either have a Centralized bank or no government involvement with banks at all. I'd choose the latter, especially today, because of the great catastrophe government has created in the banking and currency systems.
Now the prime minister is being put onto trial for gross negligence (the only head of state to be formally punished as part of the recession). It's worth remembering that the banks that did this were new to the country (all but one), they were not used to government involvement
If government had stayed out of it all along, none of this would have been an issue. Iceland would have been one of the countries to avoid the mess that the EU and US created with their meddling in the private sector.
(banks in many countries now refuse to lend to anyone those who need it, because they see it as 'high risk'. I understand taking a harsher tone on lending, but blocking off everyone, without considering them, is bad for people.
The regulators of the Fed had a similar position as yours, and this is why the housing market crashed.
They now only lend to businesses with capital to pay them back for sure).
With a completely private sector, why would this be a problem if individuals decide to do business with whomever they please? Is it government's role to build up such monstrous corporations only to try and tame them and make them take care of us poor folk who need a nanny state? I find it quite shaky when we say "hey Frankenstein, make us one of them monsters to push us around."
I'm sorry I trust bishops to stand up for the poor, it's not like they spend their life following a doctrine that tells them to do exactly that.
And I don't trust them as economic advisers. For good reason, it's not very good to give the religious a voice in politics. But that's just my opinion.
it's not hard to find criticisms from other people in a better position to judge it than me.
Sure, but saying that still doesn't make a difference in what we're talking about.
While I don't disagree that taxes do need a justification (which I feel is there, but am currently unable to provide - only heard of Libertarianism a few months ago, I'll think of something), in terms of debt, the level of taxation is very important.
This is not proper and it is, in a moral sense, evil.
Is it not (somewhat) balanced out by the fact that the money is (mostly) spent on the people?
The number of dollars and the strength of that dollar depends heavily on government.
You don't get what I'm saying :( My issue is that a society simply based on the value to which each person provides a good or service to another does not sound like a utopia to me. Obviously, utopia is not possible, but that's something that I like about socialistic policies, that everyone has worth, value, and deserves equality. The value or number of dollars has little do with that.
As well, government efforts have created the great disproportion of wealth (historically).
I disagree. I feel that taxes or no, in the globalized world we live in, economies of scale has such an advantage that they are able to push people out of business with ease. Remember that countries with higher tax rates tend to have a lower wealth inequality rate (Scandanavian ones come to mind).
Free markets is very far from corporatism.
I meant simply in the way that people spend money on goods or services that they wish to possess, and people offer them. I did not mean that corporatism encouraged the free market, or is in any way good.
It's a system of welfare that is efficient and I have no problem with it.
The Ryan plan calls for little reform (as far as I am aware, feel free to call me out on that if I am wrong), but simply cuts people from government provision to save money.
A neighborhood is unable to bring in resources and capital because government, basically, will not allow them.
I agree that this is a major problem, I have many complaints for the current government (Obama included, this started off as me defending his impact on debt), and over-regulation is one of them.
as explained, the Buffet Rule is a "red herring."
There is much more to the tax debate than the Buffet Rule. Your article claimed that he was unable to raise taxes on the rich in anyway, pushing millionaires' taxes to 30% is only part of it.
Way to leave out the most important part.
The banks damage was done at that point, one bank went into voluntary administration before it was taken over. So no, I don't feel that the government was the cause of the crash, the high risk, over-leveraged, under-regulated banking bubble was the cause of the Icelandic crash.
The regulators of the Fed had a similar position as yours, and this is why the housing market crashed.
The housing market crashed because of banks, CDO's & derivatives, pretending high risk options were completely safe, and frivolously acting bankers.
Out of interest, why do you feel that regulators have a responsibility to see these sort of things, if you are against them?
With a completely private sector, why would this be a problem if individuals decide to do business with whomever they please?
Funny how you talk about how government hurts small businesses, then defend corporations actions which do the same.
And I don't trust them as economic advisers.
An economy is nothing but a system of allocation of resources to fulfill the needs and wants of society. I trust them to say when the system would not meet needs and wants adequately. I would not trust them to suggest an alternative system, just as I would never presume to do the same, but the commentary they provide is not worthless.
in terms of debt, the level of taxation is very important.
Bill Clinton had a different view on things. It was about having taxes that can match the spending. However, if spending is out of control, increasing taxes doesn't help. this is why Clinton cut spending so much that taxes could actually be cut instead of needing any raise, while still having an annual surplus.
My issue is that a society simply based on the value to which each person provides a good or service to another does not sound like a utopia to me.
You're ignoring some of my points on a voucher program, but even so, it makes little sense to reward others for doing nothing. As well, as explained, government services provide a lot less to the public than private services. This is simply because pursuit of wealth increases overall wealth. People have more in Capitalistic countries than in Collectivist countries. This is what the USSR witnessed when they privatized more industries, and this was the BIGGEST realization for China as they went from Communist to practically Laissez-Faire economics.
Obviously, utopia is not possible, but that's something that I like about socialistic policies, that everyone has worth, value, and deserves equality.
Socialistic policies do not increase the amount of goods and services available to people (unless you include Militaristic policies that have been the only historical instance where massive government spending has actually benefited the citizens in in their wants). Food and clean water supply goes up with private industries' efforts to make more money. Consumers want goods and services, private forces provide them.
If you're worried about the poor, a voucher program (that would cut down spending and regulation greatly) would benefit them far more than a public service. Vouchers would give them the ability to choose at little to no cost to themselves. However, socialistic policies of government services and regulation only make things harder for the poor.
Remember that countries with higher tax rates tend to have a lower wealth inequality rate (Scandanavian ones come to mind).
I've given my explanation on Scandanavia and PrayerFails has given a different but also effective one as well. Wealth equality doesn't mean jack shit if the overall wealth is still low.
The Ryan plan calls for little reform
The current Ryan plan is to appeal to the Mainstream Democrats who hated his voucher program for healthcare.
over-regulation is one of them
general regulation does this. Unless you mean regulation ONLY in rich neighborhoods...
The housing market crashed because of banks, CDO's & derivatives, pretending high risk options were completely safe, and frivolously acting bankers.
It came from government incentives to "look out for the poor" who were actually the risky loans. It came from government taxes on businesses that didn't make these high risks.
Out of interest, why do you feel that regulators have a responsibility to see these sort of things, if you are against them?
I feel that you completely ignored my points that regulators should have no say in any of the business of the banks, and that general government should give absolutely no rewards to banks for any reasons. No subsidies, no tax incentives, no regulation, no interest fondling, and no bail-outs. Government should view banks as another business and should have no concern for them. This will remove their power over all of us who depend greatly on government currency yet require private industries to provide us with this government provision.
Funny how you talk about how government hurts small businesses, then defend corporations actions which do the same.
Explain.
I trust them to say when the system would not meet needs and wants adequately.
Why? forgive me, but this may just be my issue with debate in general, when others look to their pastors and school teachers as experts on very complex issues (especially to justify the surrendering of liberty for the sake of security that has never been shown to exist or be successful).
Btw, I want your opinion on something. I live in Qatar, which has a large government sector, mostly in banking and petroleum. This generates a massive portion of its GDP, over 60%, and it therefore charges minimum levels of tax. My parents only pay import tax, no VAT, no income tax, and massive subsidies on energy (petrol & electric).
The government spends billions trying to improve the country, ensure long term financial stability, building infrastructure, maintaining culture, and provides its national citizens with the most extensive benefits system in the world (most nationals get about $1 million throughout their life, if they're born today).
As for Qatar, it seems that you're living under an oil company and not an actual country like the United States.
If the USA could be as small and focused on one cash crop, sure, things would be better.
But to believe that Qatar is the way it is because of anything but the fact that Oil is one of the most highest demanded products on the planet is really... a misunderstanding of economics.
300,000 people under an absolute monarchy that has possession of one of the largest oil supplies is pretty much nothing compared to the USA, which is above 300,000,00 people and has a very mixed set of resources.
That's like living in a city that shits gold and then saying "see, why can't you be like us?"
I think you misunderstood what I was asking. I'm not asking if this model can be exported around the world, I'm far from naive. I was simply asking your opinion on what the government does, as a Libertarian. Considering much of what you complain about is the economic aspect - government takes your money & fucks up the economy - since all the Qatari government does is inject money into the system (money from oil, which a private company could have got, granted), I was wondering how you felt about it.
Essentially, whether you're a pragmatic Libertarian, or purely principled. Just out of interest.
As a human being with the ability to reason, I'm very much against this model.
Qatar is depending greatly on totalitarianism and oil. A simple drop in demand for oil will destroy your country. Under a Free Market, companies will work to meet demand. But with a government that hogs the oil reserves while depending on their supply, they have created little room for free trade. It's either Oil, or you're all screwed.
They may be dependent on petroleum products, but their main export is LNG, not oil. LNG is used in energy production, as well as in some cars, and its demand & price fluctuates much less than oil does. For example, Qatar produces over 95% of UK oil, and demand is only predicted to increase. They've made attempts to diversify their income (they've learnt from Dubai), and have one of the biggest banking sectors in the region, and huge infrastructure plans.
They also allow a free market to a reasonable extent - both Shell and Exxon make billions there, and there is a significant number of foreign companies in the country.
And, could I say that your main justification for no government is simply economic, rather than social?
your clarifications aren't showing in my argument feed. but anyway, it's no doubt that Qatar is doing quite well. I've already said that. However, an entire social and economic system to be dependent on government exports is kind of the point that I was making. Qatar has to run itself like a business to keep its employees (citizens) happy and working for the government. And it is not a free market just because it pulls in Capital (Hitler pulled in Capital but delegated most of the citizens to work for militarist goals).
Shell and Exxon make billions because of Globalization. Not because Qatar allows "free markets."
And the social aspect has much to do with with my justification for little (not no) government. A social system with a terrible economic system is not a good social system. People will have little access to goods and services of better quality if the private sector is limited and heavily regulated. As explained in my many posts before, overall wealth goes up with the pursuits of the private sector. This has been evident in transitional periods for the Soviet Union and China, which portray the greatest examples of binaries in their economics.
Society benefits when they are free to trade with each other and when they are free to compete for consumers. When free trade is restricted, people will never be able to get the goods and services that they need (unless you restrict the population itself).
nonsense. hes had to amend the entire economy whilst fighting 2 unwinnable wars and bring healthcare to the 50 million poor. the growth hes created vastly outgrows europe, his debt to dgo ratio has improved from 3.59 to 3.26 a huge change. he will save 2 trillion in military soending and was infinitely more effective than bushh in foreign relations
The wars that Bush started cost about 3 trillion dollars alone. This money was essentially wasted, in terms of the American economy. He also threw away hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts (mainly for the rich), as well as deregulating the banks, causing them to rapidly spiral their risks, into what we now call 'a great big fucking recession'. Considering that he started off with a budget surplus, I hardly consider this a good record.
Then, you look at Obama. He's cut back on military spending, partially through removing troops from around the world (saving lives), as well as through straight cuts. In his first year, spending fell - overall spending growth in 4 years is lower than the inflation rate (0.4%). Obama is spending essentially the same amount as Bush did at the end of his presidency. However, due to a fucked economy, tax revenues have fallen massively, and government non-discretionary spending has risen (due to increased welfare payments).
So no, that's patently wrong. Please learn a little more before spittling off indoctrinated bullshit.
Well, it depends whether you see 'smart' as a relative value, or as an instrumental quality of someone - whether you feel especially smart because you made someone know they were wrong, or when you achieve something very difficult.
But yes, people like this make me feel very proud of what (little) I know. Intellectual masturbation + all that shit.
Are you kidding? Jimmy Carter was a muffin compared to this guys idiocy. Jimmy Carter actually wanted the Country to do well and Succeed. This waste of human flesh is happy to destroy the Capitalist system (Using Pivard and Cloens method) He still refuses to (Spends four million to keep closed) disclose his academic record (Probably because he, like most liberals lied to use the system to get ahead(Used the foreign student criteria to get into either school he "Supposedly" attended although NOONE at either school remembers him)) Has a meeting with his cabinet ONCE in seven months(Yeah that makes twice a year if he works it right, although he is too stupid to think anyone notices how dumb as fuck he is) then tells us to inflate our tires? What a fucking moron, and anyone that supports him is as dumb as a stump to even think he is anything but a waste of human flesh.
he sucksss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
Obama is looking at the long game, obama care is the biggest and greatest progress american has ever made, obamacare will benefit both the economy and all of america , it will in fact ensure americans have a bigger stronger healthier workforce, plus it will save the lives of milions of americans and improve their quality of life too...its right morally and economically, it may even save your friends and families lives and maybe your own too.
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
the US economy is growing faster than all of europe. despite the fact bush dragged america into 2 unwinnable wars. obama has in effect ended both. he also was way more successful in talking out ghadaffi, bin laden and 100s of terrorist leaders
he is right on israel palestine too where he tries to stay somewhat neutral
at home hes given health care for 50 ,million poorest.
hes invested 800 billion in infrastructuce, industry and roads.
the US car manufacturers are now worlds number 1
hes invested trillions in education, science , technology and stem cell research too
most sectors are growing, hes also been way tougher on the chinses imports with higher tariffs
the stock market has almost doubled in value under obama from 7250 to 13700 yet this is ignored? why?
hes closed 60% of guantanamo bay, hes rewarding companies that keep american jobs in america
hes gone after corporate corruption and fined goldman sachs, british petroleum etc in total hundreds of billions
hes tightened regulations on corporate giants and reduced them on smaller businesses....hes created over 5 million private jobs and cut almost 500,000 state jobs, so hes not a socialist at all. but most new jobs are now in small businesses so hes rebalanced the economy and spread the wealth by increasing taxes on millionaires by 5% thats only fair and proper.
hes now trying to ban automatic weapons tighten gun controls and reduce the number of guns that have the potential to fall into the hands of maniacs. hes also invested more money into treatment of mental health issues.
hes a fantastic president
he has reduced military spending by 2 trillion compared to his opponents and still the US has an army bigger than the rest of the world combined.
hes reduced nuclear weapons in russia by 40% and america by 30% when the disarmament takes places. hes talked down the need for perpetual war and is at heart a peacemaker. hes achieved infinitely more than bush. hes given america its respect back, its balance and its intelligence and heart.
he isnt a socialist or a right winger, hes a balanced decent man who took over this great nation in the worst recession for 80 years and 2 unwinnable wars.....
hes clearly explained how he has built growth and jobs and infrastructure and reduced military spending and how this will in time redu ce the 16 trillion debt. the debt was 11 trillion when he started but 2 trillion was already passed in bills to bail banks, property market, plus the automotor industry which worked and save nearly a million jobs....every bank has had to pay back every cent on time or face fine after fine....obamas rules on the bankers was infinitely tighter than in europe. obama went through it with a scalpel just as he said he would
unemployment is steadily down every month for the past 20...now its 7.7% but the underlying truth is hes rebalanced the economy and there are 100s of thousands of new vibrant small businesses with millions of new jobs and new employees.
hes taken long term decisions too to help amefricans get health treatment....americans are 49th in the list of nations for mortality....the average american dies over 10 years younger than nations at the top of this list.
the last government was so far right wing it ended up on the left, where the richest were bailed out by tax payers, where 90% of the country was owned by the 1%...thats the same result as old russia...thats not free market,,thats a cartel a monopoly of fixed prices and fixed wages and corrupt rules...war mongerers were making billions by promoting war on war channels
with the healthcare bill and the tighter gun laws and bans on automatics, also with fairer taaxes and rewards for small to medium businesses, america can become again the nation of our dreams, the land of opportunity!
Wilson was pretty bad, and so was Buchanan. Carter gives Obama a good run for his money (or should I say other people's money) but I have to say Obama is without a doubt the worst, most spendthrift, most disengaged, incompetent and inept President I've ever seen. An outstanding stump politician, but completely devoid of leadership skills.
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
I think the sides in this debate are a bit skewed from the question itself.
I would prefer not to vote on either side of this due to that, but of the two choices this is more accurate; I am personally against Obama, after all.
That said, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he's the worst president the USA ever had. He's certainly not one of the best, but I doubt he's a candidate for the worst.
The first thing someone will say is "Yeah, but Bush......" I don't care who the president is, if he does wrong it is wrong. I am not Republican or Democrat. I am just plain conservative Christian. You might could sa a "Christocrat".
A List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations {http://tisaboutfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/a-list-of-obamas-constitutional-violations/}
■Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated.
■23 Executive Orders on gun control - infringement of the 2nd Amendment
■2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS - Violation of HIPPA law.
■Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3
■Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t
errorists. – Article 1 Section 1
■Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; ”he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
■Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. - Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress
■NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated. Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.
■Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything
■Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.
■Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress
■Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment
■DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. “ he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
■Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1
■Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated
■Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade
■Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment
■Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)
■Appointing agency czars without the “advice and consent of the Senate.” Violation of Article II, Section 2
■Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9.
■ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8.
■Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment
■Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers
■Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare
■Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment.
■Chrysler Bailout -TARP - violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)
■The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1.
■Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3.
■Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers.
■Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional.
■With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment.
■Plans to sign U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment.
■The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
■Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president ”shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3; Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment.
■Obama altered law - ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
■Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
■Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
■Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
■Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3
■Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3.
■Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
He is definitely up in the top 5 worst. Up until recently I said I wanted to wait until he was finished to pass final judgement but I don't see how he could recover enough to be considered a good president at this point.
Obama has done everything he said he would do during the 2008 election. also his wife has told the press that she controls the president. but he is not the worst president we have ever had. that goes to Woodrow Wilson.
It's so funny when anything like is Obama the worst president ever, they can't tell us why he isn't all they want to do is talk about Bush yea he was bad we are talking about OBAMA! he raised the debt higher than all other presidents. But let me guess it was Bush who got us into this. Look the only arguments Libtards can give us is but it was Bush's fault.
First let me say that I am slowly getting the impression that this is a site for kids and young adults. Some of the answers, and definitely a lot of the spelling and grammar indicate as much. So I realize now that I must take some of these debates with a grain of salt.
Having said that, this is what I say to people when they say that a particular President was the worst. In your adult life assess your economic standing under every President. Figure out which negative economic phases are attributed to yourself and which ones were caused by government forces. Of the ones caused by government forces, separate those caused by your state, and the federal government. Of the one(s) caused by the federal government, how many were caused by direct government legislation (do your thorough research)?
I can continue on, because of a two house congress, and stubborn party affiliations, but I am guessing, that most of the bad stuff in your life is YOUR own fault, not the fault of federal laws. Human beings, especially in America, love to point fingers and blame every one else for our screw ups. Your life is screwed up and the President (whose only been in office for 3 years) is the cause?
Reassess when your life began to plummet, I think you will find that it goes back farther than 3 years.
This site is more user based than other debate sites. Much less regulation.
It can be bad since, yeah, we have little kids with shitty arguments and debates who come on this site a lot, but they're usually ignored by the more serious debaters. Basically, a debate will get much action if it's a decent one.
What's good is that we don't have to worry about any kind of censorship or abuse of power. You're not going to get banned for saying something edgy (or even REALLY edgy). You won't get banned if you didn't match a criteria. Instead, a creator of a specific debate can restrict your participation from within that specific debate if they feel that you are being improper in the format.
Once again, user based. More freedom, but with more liberty comes less security (in this case, annoying users).
I'm from england and Americans need to give him more time, he has had to sort out the massive mess bush left and also deal with mad people calling him the anti-Christ. he has managed also to do what bush never managed to do in taking down osama bin laden a man who killed over 3000 innocent Americans. your country has got better since he came in and he deserves some credit, calling him the worst president in American history is the most stupidest thing i have ever heard most of the people going against him are only going against him because he is black, no other reason.
President Obama is most definitely not the worst. My vote, at least for modern Presidents, is definitely for Bush Jr. He is responsible for setting the U.S. back further than anyone else. Obama inherited many of the deficiencies leftover from the Bush/Cheney debacle. While I wish he would have accomplished more, and not strayed as far from many of his campaign promises, Obama has done a decent job of trying to overcome the adversity of a republican controlled house/senate. If the evangelical right would learn to play nice there would be many more advances made in the effort to have the U.S. progress vs. reverse its global course.
Obama may not be the best president but most of u r just swaying he was the worst just because he is black well that is ok but it does not matter if he is the best or worst because that is all a matter of opinion so please stop being racist with the debates
It was said not just one president would be able to fix what bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fucked up bush is the worst president ever that is why are economy is so messed up and most are not smart enough to relize that
There are two that come instantly to mind who were worse. Honestly, I don't know how W. got out of high school, let alone President? All politics aside... W was not a bright man. And being stupid doesn't make you honest or plain-spoken. It just makes you stupid. Then, there was Tricky Dick Nixon, far and away the most psychopathic president that we had.
I have really only heard one semi-effective argument against Obama.
Mostly, what I hear is that he's Muslim, Kenyan, or Black. Frankly, if he had blond hair and blue eyes, the outcome would look a lot different. When I'm surrounded by just white people and they feel a little more relaxed to use the N-word, that's mostly what I hear.
No obama is not the worst nor the best but he is a good president and a honest president too. He just came to presidency with a stack of debt and problem. The way he had handle things in U.S is incredible and i believe if he is elected once more he will be able to bring back the economy
President Obama is a remarkable President, and with unemployment trending downward he's going to be considered a historic President!
President Obama's policies have helped to expand the American economy and reduce unemployment. The country is far better off than where it was five years ago--even while many of our allies abroad continue to suffer pronounced unemployment! 7.6% unemployment nationally is far better than the whopping 10% high in October of 2009; and far better than the 12% unemployment rate currently effecting the eurozone.
The Wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq have finally concluded, and President Obama gave the order that took Osama Bin Laden out of this world. The President has also played a hand in defeating the despotic regime of Moamar Gadhafi.
Despite all the negative prognostications over the last five years, America's place in the world is looking far better with the passage of time, even while a Republican-led House refuses to dance with the President and work with him on such issues as sequestration, expanded background checks on gun purchases, and increasing tax revenue. Hopefully this attitude changes on immigration reform.
Considering his obstacles, President Obama has done an outstanding job!
These polls were all released on Thursday. Colorado is shaded red because every other poll in the state this year has had Obama in the lead. The Romney surge continues.
Both of the two positive states — Virginia and Wisconsin — saw dips for Obama from previous polling. In a March Quinnipiac survey of Virginia, Obama held an 8-point lead. The Wisconsin results, on the other hand, reaffirm that it's going to be a close race there.
The Obama campaign doesn't have Michigan on its official list of swing states. But if Romney flipped Michigan, Colorado, Ohio and Florida this election, that would give him the razor-thin 278 to 260 electoral victory.
I must comment on the absolute eloquence of George Sexton's April 13 letter to the editor and quotations relative to the treasonous activities of our esteemed president. I couldn't agree more with Sexton. This president is assuredly the worst president in the 236 years of our existence, a term predicated not only on treasonous action, but impeachable activity as well.
He has made a mockery of our Americanism by his association with known derelicts, the breaching and ignoring of our Constitution, and belittling whomever differs with his impeachable political ideals.
Obama is a bad president, but he is not the worst. Sure, he has started an illegal drone war in the Middle East, signed the PATRIOT ACT, and was prepared to pass censorship bills (SOPA/PIPA), but there have been worse presidents. Bush started two illegal wars that put our troops in danger, passed the PATRIOT ACT through Congress, and his presidency was disturbingly similar to Hitler's before Hitler became the Führer of Germany.
Obama is a great president and he gave you Obamacare and he said SORRY when it didn't work to me that showed that he was trying! Bush never said sorry for anything! Wait nope I can't hear him! I'm saying bush was way worse! Obama is trying to do good things for the country but he's challenged by the worst Congress in existence aka the gop who blames him for everything that goes wrong and doesn't give him credit for the good things he did!
Remember bush! Obama captured Osama bin laden a thing that bush didn't even ATTEMPT TO DO because he wanted oil and needed a good scapegoat for 9/11 also Obama never exploited the oil spill! Guess what Bush exploited 9/11 a distaster that MIGHT of been averted if bush stopped reading My Pet Goat and hurried to save those 3,000 Americans! Stiill 9/11 was osama's fault not bush and those 3,000 Americans might of died anyway even if bush been responsible and stopped reading my pet goat and tried to help! Plus bush wasn't even ELECTED! Obama was elected besides he apolized when healthcare went wrong! And Obama was trying to help the poor and doesn't take nearly as much vacations as bush at least I believe! I also believe that Obama did tax cuts for the 95% ie the poor and even us in the 4% ie the middle class!
Bush also lied to us and killed a lot of ours soldiers and injured more all for the sake of OIL COMPANIES! Cheney was the one puppettering bush I know but bush lied and he never visited a military funeral! Obama lied too but I don't think he meant to lie! Obama was most likely thinking that the things he said were going to happen but it didn't happen that way oh and Obama APOLIZED and that means a lot to me! Bush lied ON PURPOSE and never said sorry for anything! Obama is having a hard time now and has a congress that blames him for the bad and never gives him credit for the good! He caught Osama as well and he wants to help the poor! And tax the rich but congress won't let him! Mitt Romney said that the poor are lazy moochers aka the 47% or should we say the 95% and Obama's done and is trying to do great things! He may not be the best president! Clition gave us a surplus and Lincoln freed the slaves but he-Obama is FAR from being the worst! Last place belongs to Mr. Former president and liar and idiotic and lazy George W. Bush!
Obama i would say ties in for a good second place but bush was defiantly the worst, killing 3,000 people just so he could start homeland security and take away our rights huh small price to pay for more power i guess.
