Was the recession created by wars or bad policy?
Bad policy
Side Score: 13
|
Wars
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
2
points
1
point
1
point
What was the reason for what? Bad policy or war did what? You need to clarify. Also, after insulting me the way you did, don't try and talk about me in third person. You can't hide from me. I'll notice you everywhere. I'll always find you. Now, do you plan on making a good argument? What is this debate even about? Side: wars
0
points
I'm the idiot that said the two-front war over a decade old is part of the problem. Thanks for letting me know I got under your skin - it shows that you can't handle the truth! To kick start a economy is a "good little war" - but not for 10 years! I pity the fool who thinks otherwise! "Wars are expensive (in money and other resources), destructive (of capital and human capital), and disruptive (of trade, resource availability, labor management). Large wars constitute severe shocks to the economies of participating countries. Notwithstanding some positive aspects of short-term stimulation and long-term destruction and rebuilding, war generally impedes economic development and undermines prosperity. " Side: War is Bad policy
1
point
1
point
|
Oh well.. Recession is a result of a war. This war is of'course the result of a bad policy. But, the results of the war were devastating. It led to a a stage so pathetic that the employed were unemployed, the housed were unhoused. Everything was expensive and hard to get. And lives were lost and are still at stake. Side: wars
1
point
'There has never been a state that has benefited from an extended war'. Obama needs to ends the wars to fix the ecomony. "...if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain ... Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished ... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns." Side: wars
|