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.
While that is a biased statement I will follow up by stating that Barack Obama understands the concept of spending money to earn money, regardless of the fact that the 1.7t dollar debt was handed to him by President Bush and you cannot just reduce that debt overnight.
You can increase the debt over a long period of time, but it has been proven that to reduce the debt, etc, you have to SPEND money to MAKE money, reduce the debt by increasing the spending temporarily. Look at how New York which was incredibly bankrupt, they followed the aid of a specific economist who recommended the above ideology and it worked.
I'm from New York. My state had a $9 billion budget deficit. The legislature didn't want to cut anything. Governor Paterson cut so much out of the budget. He decreased NY's spending by almost $9 billion. I don't know what fairy tale you live in, but this is not what happened in NY.
Evidently, he was not a successful economist considering every nation that followed his philosophy ended in economic disaster. (See Chile under the Junta)
Hmmm. Apparently you haven't read the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Kleine, or heard about the disasterous results Friedman's philosophy leads to in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY WHICH HAS ATTEMPTED IT. I shall repeat that, look at Chile, they followed the Chicago School of Economics (Run By Friedman) and they're economy collapsed, following that, the Junta Government, run by Pinochet (irony) resulted to nationalizing several major industries because the economy did not naturally fix itself. So as for that argument, Naomi Kleine has "out duel[ed]" Friedman.
That is where you are wrong. I actually have read Shock Doctrine.
First, the United States executed the coup in Chile of President Allende and replaced with with the dictator, Pinochet.
The reason that lassize faire economics didn't work because it was used inappropriately exactly as Kleine described it as a Shock Doctrine. The approach was abrupt, and should have been incremental steps towards capitalism, yet you apparently left out that Friedman was only an adviser, so ultimately he made no decisions. This same approach of abrupt capitalism also failed in Russia.
Naomi Kleine has "out duel[ed]" Friedman.
When did this take place. They have never been in a debate with one another.
You are forgetting that Kleine leaves in the free capitalism democratic United States of America.
1. Naomi Klien, as apparently you do not know, lives in Montreal, a country far more left than us. So...that's...wrong. Secondly, Friedman was an Advisor to Pinochet he may not have mad any decision but he might as well have. He was directly to blame for the economic positions of the Junta. And regardless, if his theories were correct no matter when it occured the switch to capitalism should have, by his thought worked automatically.
Whether Canada or the United states, it doesn't matter because both are free capitalist free Democratic societies; the only difference Canada has with more social programs. Obviously, the book is being told by a bias standpoint of a left socialist
Regardless you just ruined your own statement. The United States is one of the few countries in the world with such deregulation that allows horrible natural disasters to occur without recompense to the corporations that allow them. As well, our country is NOT a democracy because we willingly allow corporations to purchase senators (see the recent supreme court decision).
our country is NOT a democracy because we willingly allow corporations to purchase senators (see the recent supreme court decision).
It is illegal for corporations to purchase Senators.
If you have read the decision, instead of getting your information from MSNBC, then you would know that corporations can't purchase Senators.
The ruling decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech.
However, this might as well be purchasing senators you idiot. Corporations are created by what? Persons. Thusly we are giving the corporation and it's CEO's effectively TWO votes and amounts of money for advertizing.
Calling me an idiot doesn't make your argument any stronger, and doesn't change the fact that corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members granted by the same Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has been wrong before? Seperate but equal? That bill has slammed democracy's head against a train track. I guarantee it will be overruled.
If it will be overruled, why has Congress not overruled it with majority Senate and House Democratic Congress using it checks and balances against the Court.
---Power to initiate constitutional amendments that undo Supreme Court decisions
---Power to set jurisdiction of courts (they can tell a court that they can not hear a case on a certain topic, which includes changing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court)
Your obviously in complete ignorance of the lawmaking process.
Bills are not created by the President, they can be PASSED by the President but they are created by Congress whom he can work with but he should not be expected to know during any creative process any obscure facets of the bill (even though he does and this is a foundless claim.)
Ok, that's an exceptional case. I can't fathom how awesome that is, or imagine how it is possible. But nobody in our government is smart enough to read and absorb that much legal mumbo jumbo.
He takes credit for it and this has to be the most absurd comment I've read on create debate "he should not be expected to know during any creative process any obscure facets of the bill "
Then how in the hell is he out there campaigning about what he is going to get done?
Im stating that he can say what he wants done! He can have priorities but he cannot be held to writing them into the bill. Surely he expects them and can pressure them into doing so but he cannot force them into there.
Can I ask you how that is even a relevant point in this argument at all?
If relative intelligence is important, then relative stupidity is equally so.
Take your pointless (factually unfound bias) elsewhere.
Having presented no evidence to support your claim that Obama is markedly intelligent, I am of the opinion that your bias is as unfounded as TERMINATOR's.
Barack is obviously intelligent for having passed the first bill giving health care to the majority of Americans in the United States.
Time will tell. Making a decision does not imply intelligence unless it turns out to be the right one. I, as yet, no official view on Obama's healthcare policies, not having read through them in much detail, but in my experience many decisions in that area are frequently wrong. Thus, I do not believe that you can proclaim his intelligence based solely on this. Furthermore, we cannot even tell whether the idea was his or that of one of his advisers.
