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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Was it Obama's fault that the US federal debt has exploded in the last four years?
When Obama came into office, the US debt was about 10.6 trillion dollars. Now, after about 3.75 years, it's up to 16 trillion dollars. Many blame Obama for this, but is it true?
While in office, Obama has raised spending at an anual rate of 1.4% - slower than any president in the recent past (link). However, revenues have fallen massively, due to a recession already in play when he was inaugurated. A stimulus bill was passed to try and reduce these effects (included in the spending growth rate), but this was criticized as being too small.
There is a widespread belief that the huge amount of US debt is Obama's fault, and no one elses. But how well founded is this belief really?
This is intellectually dishonest. If you know presidents have little control over the economy, why blame him then? This is laziness on your part, as well as anyone else who thinks similarly.
Just because there we have a bad economy, it doesn't mean that you should start spending more. But before someone says "Obama racked almost as much debt as Obama did" I'd like to remind you, Obama's debt rate more than twice as fast as Bush's rate.
This is just intellectually dishonest. The increased rate of debt was in direct response to the stimulus package, which was passed before Obama took office. Since then the rate of increase has slowed and has slowed to below the rate of increase during Bush's term.
It's a dumb debate anyway. Countries are supposed to increase debt in a recession. During a recession people don't have money and businesses don't have money (corporations do, but they refuse to spend it) the only option left is for government to stimulate growth by investing in programs that create long-lasting jobs in the private and the public sector.
The U.S. debt to GDP ratio is one of the lowest, or the lowest, of any western nation. And the majority of our debt is owed to ourselves, setting us even further apart from most of the world.
It's a distraction, a red herring. The debt is nearly completely inconsequential.
You think the debt is inconsequential? You think the government ringing up a massive bill, sticking you with it then printing their way out of debt has no consequence? Don't give me that "supposed to increase debt in a recession" hows that working out for us? The jobless rate is at over 15% more and more jobs are being lost. You seem to think that only the government can solve the problem (that it caused) but your wrong, if we got rid of all these regulations the market would work itself out, and besides, we need to cut spending to, even with a 1005 income tax on everyone the budget would still be impossible to balance, thats not even factoring in all the loses that would come from people leaving the country and paying taxes to a different government.
It is inconsequential. Our debt, again, is one of the lowest of the free world as a percent of our total riches and most of it is owed to ourselves. And cutting the debt means cutting jobs at this point, which is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. You can cut debt, sure, but that in itself doesn't magically create jobs. There is no connection there.
I don't "seem to think only government" blah blah you dimwit. I've had this conversation with you a million times. Government can play a role, and in a recession must play a role.
Getting rid of regulations would lead only to more job losses and dangerous products. Companies would cut corners to make stuff cheaper, giant corporations would price out all competitors and create monopolies, the financial industry would have even more freedom to manipulate the market so money flows only upward and even faster. It would be a ridiculous disaster to get rid of all regulations.
And back to the debt since order seems to be beyond your ability, so what? No one is proposing raising taxes on anyone who cannot afford them and it makes dick for difference if we have some debt right now, and no one who would have their taxes raised, those above the $250,000/year range, are going to "leave the country" because of it. And if they do, who cares? If their sole allegiance to the country that allowed them to become rich hinges on making $27,000 or so per month instead of only $24,000 something per month, fuck them.
You seem to be unable to draw the connection between a massive debt, inflation and a bad economy. When your saying that if we cut debt it hurts the economy are you implying that the government is what creates jobs? Thats funny, last time I checked they destroy jobs, not create them. There is a large connection between getting rid of regulations and lower taxes with a good economy.
And you do seem to think government is playing a large role, which you are right, they are playing a large role in making the economy worse and handing use the bill for their debt, dimwit.
Getting rid of regulations would lead only to more job losses and dangerous products.
Wait wait wait, you think cutting regulations that make business harder in this country would lead to more job loss and dangerous production? You realize all this red tape is responsible for jobloss right?
Companies would cut corners to make stuff cheaper, giant corporations would price out all competitors and create monopolies, the financial industry would have even more freedom to manipulate the market so money flows only upward and even faster.
In a free market there can't be a monopoly, these regulations protect big business and corporations and make it much harder on smaller and newer businesses.
It would be a ridiculous disaster to get rid of all regulations.
Not all regulations, but a good amount of them should be gotten rid of.
And back to the debt since order seems to be beyond your ability, so what? No one is proposing raising taxes on anyone who cannot afford them and it makes dick for difference if we have some debt right now, and no one who would have their taxes raised, those above the $250,000/year range, are going to "leave the country" because of it.
There proposing (and doind it) raising taxes on just the rich, not only is this not equal or fair, your pushing the rich out, money and rich people can be easily moved out of a country.
And if they do, who cares? If their sole allegiance to the country that allowed them to become rich hinges on making $27,000 or so per month instead of only $24,000 something per month, fuck them.
Dude, grow up, stop hating the rich and learn a few things about economics, then you can come back and if you wish you can continue to play your broken record. Incase you haven't noticed, people who work in skill jobs or own business can be considered rich, lets see if your still saying "fuck them" when they fire all their workers, close their shops and start shipping jobs to other countries... oh wait, they already are.
There is a large connection between getting rid of regulations and lower taxes with a good economy.
Yeah, Bush thought that too when he took over from Clinton, look how well that worked out.
In a free market there can't be a monopoly, these regulations protect big business and corporations and make it much harder on smaller and newer businesses.
This has honestly got to be a joke. Have you any reminiscence of knowledge regarding U.S. history? There was something called the Sherman anti-trust act that was created as a result of the monopolies created in an overly free market. The deregulation allowed a few massive companies to thrive while destroying small businesses.
Not all regulations, but a good amount of them should be gotten rid of.
Your ideas and writing style all correlate to someone with meager intelligence
There proposing (and doind it) raising taxes on just the rich, not only is this not equal or fair, your pushing the rich out, money and rich people can be easily moved out of a country.
The ultra-rich on average pay a smaller percentage of taxes than you do. Mitt Romney for example, payed 13% while the American average is 20%. Exxon, a company making 5 million per hour, payed an effective tax rate of 17.6%, again below the national average. America was a country founded by the wealthy and in turn wrote a constitution to protect them selves and equivalents. The least the rich can do is pay an equal tax rate.
when they fire all their workers, close their shops and start shipping jobs to other countries... oh wait, they already are.
You don’t even know the root cause for the exodus of factory jobs. America has something called minimum wage, something the destinations of those same factory jobs, don’t have. Yet, they have the profligacy to sell their products in our country after they fired our brothers, our sisters, our family. How does America compete with those nations? TAX the big businesses that think its ok to ship jobs over seas, then sell to our people. Take away the benefit of expediting our jobs over seas. Reward those that see the wrong in hurting our economy. Most, especially the rich, are self-interested. Until you force them to come back, that money saved hiring a Chinese worker, far out weighs the moral injustice to firing an American.
Crazy Austrian bullshit? Yes, of course, how could I have not seen this all along. Believing that a market can work without the government have a large amount of interference and think that the government increasing spending and unemployment benefits doesn't help jobs its just insanity, pure insanity that comes from Austria!
And as for the money policy for the first link, generally (not always but most of the time) when the Fed starts printing more money than it should and creates artificially low rates, it doesn't end well.
As President and Commander in Chief of the USA Obama is ultimately responsible for the major increase in national debt, crumbling economy, high unemployment, inflation and devaluation of the dollar. Any reasonable person would agree that if the economy were to have changed course and flourished, unemployment numbers lowered and the dollar was strengthened President Obama would SURELY accept credit for being directly responsible; if he can accept credit for positive momentum then he MUST own the fact that he is ultimately responsible for not even a stagnant but rapidly deteriorating economy. If he keeps allowing Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to print money and artificially "stimulate" the economy by moving forward with the third failed attempt at "quantitative easing" this country will be the next Greece. NWO is in full effect but our citizens dont want to open their eyes to that reality. The democrats have fooled the so called "minorities" into blindly voting democrat on every issue and for every candidate without truly understanding the consequences. They have used the "minorities" innate tribalism to trick them into believing ALL democratic principles are in their best interests. Last time I checked most major metroplitan cities are thoroughly controlled by democratic politicians; if dems were for the "minority" why do those democratic mayors allow the police force to harass predominantly minority neighborhoods, the jails are filled with 80% minorities, minorities have less job opportunity etc... They are right on time with the welfare checks and section 8 though... the democrats want to keep you down, Republicans want to help Americans to help themselves!!
In a way, it really is. When you look at European countries that attempted the idea of spending cuts ending the recession, you really see how detrimental that idea was on the growth of their respective economies. As proven throughout history (great depression) and modern day rescission (China), the commonality of success was some sort of stimulus that counteracted the effects of an economic decline. In other words, a successful recovery necessitates otherwise excessive spending by the government.