The Instigator
BobTheLibertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
apolyM
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gary Johnson should be the next president

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
BobTheLibertarian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,195 times Debate No: 49053
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

BobTheLibertarian

Pro

1st round acceptence , 2nd round opening statements, 3rd round rebuttals and closing statement.
Debate Round No. 1
BobTheLibertarian

Pro

Former govenor of New Mexico and 2012 Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson should be the next president because America is tired of the government interfering with people's lives, spying on their own people, starting uneccesary wars, and America is ready for some real change. His veiws are consistent with liberty and fredom. After two bad authoritarian presidents from both parties it is time for a president that will get the government out of people's lives and get rid of policies that defy common snese.

A summary of Gary John's politcal veiws are as followed

Supports the lagalization of Marijuana
Supports Gay Marriage and Civil Unions
Supports cutting taxes and regulations
Against corporate welfare
Supports gun rights
Against Obamacare
Against the patriot Act and the NSA
Supports cutting Military spending
Supports Free Trade
Against foreign aid

http://www.ontheissues.org...










apolyM

Con

The government shouldn't be involved with marriage at all.
He still supports the income tax.
Debate Round No. 2
BobTheLibertarian

Pro

Gary Johnson does not support the income tax. He is not only in favor of abolishing the Income Tax but with the whole IRS and rplacing it with his Fair Tax System.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com...

When it comes to gey marriage he actually agrees with you. In a speech Gary Johnson gave in 2011 he stated “As a believer in individual freedom and keeping government out of personal lives, I simply cannot find a legitimate justification for federal laws, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, which ‘define’ marriage. That definition should be left to religions and individuals – not government. Government’s role when it comes to marriage is one of granting benefits and rights to couples who choose to enter into a marriage ‘contract’. As I have examined this issue, consulted with folks on all sides, and viewed it through the lens of individual freedom and equal rights, it has become clear to me that denying those rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple. "
apolyM

Con

didn't realize he was flogging the fairtax, i yield that one to you however the government has no business "granting benefits and rights to couples who choose to enter into a marriage "contract"." the whole concept needs to be tossed. in taking that as some sort of given you're just making the system worse in allowing gay marriage. I suggest you look into ron paul, i beleive he's one of gary's idols? he's got it straight, with nearly identical political positions, he's just got marriage right.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
That's not a quote from the report. Also, please don't pontificate. You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about and lack a basic understanding of economics. I look forward to our debate. I have read the report, by the way. You should read it -- and while you're at it, take a basic course in economics. You and Gary Johnson can share notes.
Posted by BobTheLibertarian 3 years ago
BobTheLibertarian
The CBO has placed precise estimates on Job loss. In the report CBO stated that "central estimate of job change for minimum wage increase is -500,000." I recommend you read the report before our debate. Lets save these arguments on minimum wage for the actually debate.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
Actually, the CBO estimated job losses from 0 to 1 million using available studies that are already out, but could not put a precise figure on it. They said it could cost as much as 1 million jobs, but could also cost 0 jobs -- which is what right-wingers won't tell you. You're also not mentioning that it said it would provide a significant fiscal stimulus and lift over a million people out of poverty.

You're also wrong on your facts. It wasn't easy money. In fact, both prior to the Depression -- as even Milton Friedman pointed out -- and the Great Recession, the Fed wasn't doing enough. The problem was banks were giving out loans to people who couldn't afford them, indeed. But they were doing so through fraudulent means -- predator lending is the term I'm sure you've heard. They took on far too much leverage and, by the time their loans were called in, they couldn't pay back the interest or the principle. Houses values dropped significantly, people lost their livelihoods, and the global economy -- due to the resulting consumption gap -- shrunk.

It may be a good idea to look elsewhere then Fox News, the Cato Institute, and reason.com for your information.
Posted by BobTheLibertarian 3 years ago
BobTheLibertarian
I don't know what who you have been listening to of what you have been reading but in the latest CBO report on raising the minimum wage it predicted that raising it to $10.10 will cause half a million people to lose their jobs. So the CBO actually agrees with me on this one. Read it yourself http://www.cbo.gov...

Deregulation didn't cause the great recession. The heart of the problem that caused the recession was that banks were giving out bad loans plain and simple. All the other stuff like MBS trading, etc. just spread out the damage across the entire financial system.
Why did the banks do this? There was a lot of "easy money" flowing around. The Fed did have a role in causing the recession, just as it did in the great depression, between 2000-2003 when the housing bubble started the Fed had lowered the Federal Funds Rate from 6.5% to 1%. There were other factors that created a world of easy money for the banks but the Fed was the main one.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
Also, there's this myth that inflation is too high and the Fed caused the 2008 recession. Both are nonsense. Deregulation, which Gary would go even further on, is to blame.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
That first comment is a hilarious, economically illiterate ad hominem. Your suggestion is that anyone who disagrees with you on the minimum wage doesn't understand economics. It turns out, even the CBO disagrees with you. Be careful about whom you're insulting.

Also, the link between the minimum wage and outsourcing is almost unfounded. The same argument is made in response to free trade. It's negligible there, and the same logic applies to the minimum wage.

And, no, you're misinformed on Gary's positions on austerity. He said "BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET NOW." His cuts were over the course of one year. And even if they weren't, they're still obscene.

Here's Gary in a nutshell: pretend to be a populist, but give massive breaks to corporations -- who will pay NOTHING in taxes under his proposal -- and take away vital services from middle-income and poor people, whilst raising their taxes.

Sounds like a wonderful guy!
Posted by BobTheLibertarian 3 years ago
BobTheLibertarian
First of all a increase in the minimum wage is Ludacris. It will only lead to increased unemployment, price increases, and will send even more jobs overseas. If you don't understand that then maybe you don't understand economics in the slightest.

Although I'm not a 100% aboard his fair tax plan, it would be a great improvement over the current system. As far as the 43% cuts that would occur over time not just in one year.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
Also, what kind of corporate welfare is Gary against? Before he gets his FairTax passed -- which he never would -- do you think he would eliminate subsidies to Big Oil and agribusiness? Of course not. He doesn't even support a minimum wage hike or increase in the safety net -- the low minimum wage, in conjunction with SNAP programs, are a de-facto welfare program to the Wal-Marts of the world, who can continue to pay poverty level wages.

At the same time, this guy screamed there was a $1.4 trillion deficit. First of all, that's BS. Second, a 43% across-the-board cut is nonsensical. What monetary collapse? What in the bloody heck is he talking about? He commented that "if that [his tax plan] doesn't create hundreds of millions of jobs, I [he] doesn't know what will." Yeah, he's right on one thing: he hasn't a bloody clue.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
BobTurner
There isn't much to debate haha.
Posted by BobTheLibertarian 3 years ago
BobTheLibertarian
Maybe ill invite you to a debate about him next time Bobturner
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
BobTheLibertarianapolyMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro laid out his case why Gary Johnson's views were important in terms of civil liberties, as his view clearly defends this idealogy. Con did not addressed Pro's point whatsoever. Con did however addressed gay marriage but he failed to state how moving government out of marriage is a good thing. As such, I am to rely on this weak subjective hunch. Pro at least somewhat elaborated the importance of liberties , while Con was meddling in his own isle of opinions. Without a proper evaluation, Con's case holds no merit whatsoever. Pro was the only one providing sources, as such he gets the point.