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.
If he could he should have by now, but his "spend trillions of dollars making the government bigger and they will make everything better" technique just doesn't work. Not only has he not improved the economy, but he made it ten times worse worse.
I don't think it's fair (or serves any purpose) to simply say "Obama did it wrong". To really make any sort of point or a meaning argument you have to explain what would have be the right thing to do and back it up with proof. When providing that proof you also have to be very careful and concede that however great your idea/proof is, you can't be 100% sure that it is right. Economics is not an exact science. An idea can be perfect and rational on paper but the population is not always rational so it's very hard to know for certain what effect actions will have when dealing with a large "chaotic" population.
To really make any sort of point or a meaning argument you have to explain what would have be the right thing to do
Not spend trillions of dollars making the government bigger and expecting everything to magically get better.
and back it up with proof.
It should be proof enough that this method has never worked in history. Those with more economic freedom have thrived. If you look at the following link you can see how the U.S. is ranked No. 10, but it used to be ranked 6. http://www.heritage.org/index/ If you look at the next link, type united states in the top left box, then click through all the buttons to see all the aspects of it economic freedom. http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?src=home You will see how they are all at least moderately free, and are not the reason the U.S. is no longer as economically free. But the only one which is not at least moderately free is Government spending, which during the past four years of Obama's presidency has dropped from the borderline of moderately free all the way to repressed (the section representing the least freedom.)
Economics is not an exact science
Its not, but some things dont have to be exact for the facts to be completely obvious.
it's very hard to know for certain what effect actions will have when dealing with a large "chaotic" population.
The united states is not considered "chaotic" being governed by english common law, civil law, and some natural law, especially compared to other nations.
Maybury, Richard J., and Richard J. Maybury. "Natural Law and Economic Prosperity, Nations and Legal Systems." Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? 5th ed. Placerville, CA: Bluestocking, 1989. 98-123. Print.
Very interesting stuff. I do have a few problems with the reference you gave on "economic freedom". After Googling around it seems that 99% of the supporters and providers of information on economic freedom comes from very conservative or right wing sources, websites, blogs, etc. Most of these sources I looked at have an agenda or at least a strong conservative pro business bias. Do you have any sources that are "neutral" or are equally bias in the other direction? It's important for me (and hopefully everyone) to build my knowledge base from all angles so I don't accidentally start to take one groups "opinions" as facts.
Bias aside, I think it's over simplifying things to say "economic freedom went down = Obama did the wrong thing". We are in a unprecedented situation here, that again, many would say Obama inherited. Economic freedom is a large and complex topic so maybe you can just take one specific part of economic freedom (your choice) and relate it to Obama and how he did it wrong.
Its not, but some things don't have to be exact for the facts to be completely obvious.
If you think the answers to our economic problems are "completely obvious" it seems like you must be either a brilliant economist or are oversimplifying the situation? I mean as much as you may not agree with Obama, others including congress, economic advisers, professors, etc are working on how best to help the economy and I have not heard anything close to "completely obvious" from any side?
chaotic
Sorry, I did not mean chaotic in that way. My fault. What I meant is the economy/society is "chaotic" as in "chaos theory", subject to "butterfly effect" etc. Basically one tiny thing over here can have a huge effect at a later date over there. All the interactions are so complex that it's impossible to model the system perfectly.
After Googling around it seems that 99% of the supporters and providers of information on economic freedom comes from very conservative or right wing sources, websites, blogs, etc.
Which is why if you look at the link, you will see the one I provided is a non-biased source.
If you think the answers to our economic problems are "completely obvious" it seems like you must be either a brilliant economist or are oversimplifying the situation
I didnt mean our economic problems are obvious, I meant that its obvious that Obama ruined the economy.
Bias aside, I think it's over simplifying things to say "economic freedom went down = Obama did the wrong thing"
No, what i meant is that we have less economic freedom in the area of government spending. And my point was that Obama is making the government bigger and expecting everything to get better, and this system does not work. I didnt provide any prof of this, seeing as it is completely obvious.
that it's impossible to model the system perfectly
Exactly my point. I am not saying Obama didnt do a perfect job with the economy, i said he didnt do a good job at all. If you look at my previous statements, i am not just saying Obama did a bad job, but im saying how the Keynesian does not work at all. If you wish to disput that stament pease show any proof that this method has ever worked in history.
Which link is the unbiased one? The gregpytel one?
Ok, so lets look at Obama's spending since that seems to be the one you feels is the biggest mistake. Which spending was the mistake specifically? I'm not saying none of his spending was a mistake, I'm just trying to get down to a specific topic/point that we can debate.
Spending to make the government bigger and expecting them to work everything out. I gave you a link on the Keynesian method. Read it so you can know what im talking about.
Yeah. I did check out the Keynesian stuff. Thanks for the link. However, it did not find any consensus that "modern Keynesian" economics were "all wrong". I saw some economists argue that it was right, some argue that it was wrong, some argue that it's not clear. What was clear from both sides, and what I believe as well, is that economics is very complicated and it's impossible to say what will work, what did work, etc. Even when looking back at history, economists seems to argue on what worked and did not work and why.
One of the principals of the keynesian model does seem to be that the "right" government spending can help get you our of a recession. Obviously debatable. I read many articles on the effectiveness of this in the past and over the last 4 years. Most of papers seemed to draw a conclusion that it did help. In some cases quite a bit, in other cases not that much. One thing is for sure, the stimulus did not work as well as people would have liked. Of course it very easy in hind site to say "see, it did not work as well as you said", however there are many reasons for that known and unknown. Some would argue the stimulus should have been bigger, or that the economy was in worse shape that it seemed, or that states undermined the effectiveness of the stimulus. Finally what might have happened if the stimulus and other spending did not happen? What if auto makers failed (and the entire supply chain with it), what if all the banks had gone under, what if none of the "shovel ready" projects have never been undertaken? I think it's very disingenuous to say "Obama ruined the economy" when it could have been much, much worse? For all we know, given the specific circumstances (housing bubble, china, European financial crisis), Obama did the one and only thing that could have averted the "actual" ruin of the american economy. I don't think is is true, but it is food for "critical thought".
Note: the following is a little off topic and more about "political dialog in america"
So if anything I think the honest statement from a conservative critical thinker could be something like: "Though Obama is not solely responsible for the economic state of america, I do feel that policy X,Y,Z could have performed better than what his administration has done to try and fix the problem." Or something like that. This type of statement has the following advantages to you (and everyone else):
- It implies that your argument is not only ideological because it's not venomous and shows critical thinking (admits fallibility).
- It does not alienate others with opposing views. If you alienate/"turn off" people with opposing views, your arguments are falling on deaf ears (except for those that already agree with you) so your wasting your time and energy.
- Offers an alternative. Without a viable alternative, an augment just seems like complaining or strictly ideological
BEFORE you dispute this, please read argument 4 first. I know this arguments long so at least read No. 4. I wrote it last, and then i realized the rest isn't really needed, but i left it just in case you still wanted me to refute some of your points.
1.However, it did not find any consensus that "modern Keynesian" economics were "all wrong"
Within the link i provided? The title of the article is "Keynesian approach would not work." So it should be obvious the consensus is that it wont work. I didnt say its "All wrong." If it was, it wouldnt have been created in the first place. But just many parts of it do not work.
2. What was clear from both sides, and what I believe as well, is that economics is very complicated and it's impossible to say what will work, what did work, etc
I think this is where you are wrong. As unclear as economics may be, it is not impossible to understand what will work and what wont. If so, there wouldnt be a science dedicated to understanding it, seeing as it is impossible. I am not saying it is as simple as reading a rule book and knowing what works. "Do this and you will have a perfect economy. Do this and you will have a bad economy." But what i am saying, is that it can be obvious that some things do ruin the economy, and somethings can improve it.
3. One of the principals of the keynesian model does seem to be that the "right" government spending can help get you our of a recession
True, but if you are acquainted with the business cycle, the government is the one that gets us into the recession in the first place. The business cycle is as follows: The government needs more money to pay for things with, so instead of raising taxes, it inflates. When it gets scared of double digit inflation, and the sky rocketing prices that will consequently follow, it stops inflating. Then when they stop inflating, they get scared of the recession that accordingly follows. So they inflate again until they get scared of runaway inflation/rising prices, so they stop, until they get scared of a recession again. If you dont entirely understand, i suggest researching it. There are also infinite, not exactly subsets, but things tied in with the business cycle, which involve more variables, such as the economy which the inflation is injected into, the decisions people make with the money, stock market etc., such as the wage/price spiral and the boom-bust cycle.
4. Finally what might have happened if the stimulus and other spending did not happen? What if auto makers failed (and the entire supply chain with it), what if all the banks had gone under, what if none of the "shovel ready" projects have never been undertaken? I think it's very disingenuous to say "Obama ruined the economy" when it could have been much, much worse? For all we know, given the specific circumstances (housing bubble, china, European financial crisis), Obama did the one and only thing that could have averted the "actual" ruin of the american economy. I don't think is is true, but it is food for "critical thought".
There are an infinite amount of things that could mess up the economy. Obama did help protect it from things such as the auto industry collapse, but that is why i specifically said he wasted money on government expansion not government spending. I can understand the confusion in how i worded it. Some of Obama's spending choices were good, just he used more on bad spending choices (choices that will put us further in debt) than good, which is why we are so much in debt. I did not say all of his spending choices were a waste, i said that "using money by expanding the government and expecting them to fix everything" is a waste. Thats why i said it exactly how i said it. Also thats why initially i purposely did not say "Keynesian economics" doesnt work. There are many more aspects to the Keynesian method than government expanding, and Obama doesnt use all of them, mainly the government expansion part. To prevent further confusion, i will only debate you on my original statement that: Obama further ruined the economy by spending so much money making the government bigger and expecting they will make everything better. You can correct me or clarify some things i might be wrong about in my argument, but that is the only statement i will be debating you on.
5. So if anything I think the honest statement from a conservative critical thinker could be something like: "Though Obama is not solely responsible for the economic state of america, I do feel that policy X,Y,Z could have performed better than what his administration has done to try and fix the problem."
That statement would be appropriate for a formal policy debate. This debate site is more casual. Also policy debate has a judge. There is no judge to decide which side wins, so no one would be accepting either of the resolutions, the current or the alternative. So there really is no reason to provide an alternative to the current system (even though i did). The question posed in the debate was simply "Should Obama have already improved the economy". A simple answer would be yes or no. Even though more would be acceptable to provide an alternative, it isn't necessary. Again, I did actually provide one, to make my statement more debatable. And also i didnt say Obama is solely responsible for the economic state of America.
I'm pretty sure that there is some sort of an equation used to pull America out of debt. The Panic of 1812 and the great depression are majorly well known but America has had many many panics. We aren't really in a recession anymore. The term just still lingers. But in modern times it takes longer. Everybody just blames the president since he is the one who said "change is coming". He isn't a god. He won't just go poof and everybody is happy. If everybody wants a better economy then everybody should contribute to the cause.
No, it takes more then 4 years to fix 8 years of mess, people need to understand this, our system is broke and I blame the Republicans and there greedy right wing and wannabe pro Christ views. we need to use LOGIC and REASON to fix our problems not emotions, yes I am calling Conservatives and Republicans EMO's.
In four years it was entirely possible to have recovered from the recession, but he has had only two. These two years were the years before the Republicans gained control of Congress, after this happened it was impossible for him to do anything. When the only thing Congress would do is make it their objective to say no to everything Obama tried to do, you expect miracles?
If what to blame some one; put the blame where it belongs, on Congress.
