The Instigator
Junja
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

Obama's presidency has been successful so far

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,192 times Debate No: 35563
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (7)

 

Junja

Pro

For RoyLatham, Obama has been a successful president and can only get better
RoyLatham

Con

I accept. Please post your case.

Obviously it is possible for Obama to get worse, so I assume that we will just debate whether he has been successful so far.
Debate Round No. 1
Junja

Pro

Barack Obama entered office with one of the worst crises in American history. He has helped get America get back on track, and while recovery has been slow, it has been steady and will continue to get better. His many accomplishments include killing Osama Bin Laden, who was America's biggest threat in many years, ending the war in Iraq, which was a very unnecessary war, repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell allowing Gays in the military, and saving the banks AND the US auto industry. But his biggest accomplishment is definitely the Affordable Care Act, it will cover over 32 million uninsured Americans by 2014. The economy is slowly getting better, and while it's not where we all want it to be, unemployment has steadily decreased, the stock market has steadily increased to what are now record levels and businesses are continuing to grow.Obviously what you will bring up is debt. Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, had to pay for two wars he did not start, and had to put a lot of money saving the auto industry and the banks, and bear the cost of increased national security required to combat terrorism. This costs money but with interest rates at record low levels it was a good time to borrow to grow and the saved economy will allow us to reduce the debt over time.
RoyLatham

Con

My opponent challenged me to this debate. It's good topic that deserves attention.

Obamacare and Deficits are Obama failures


Yesterday, President Obama touted [1. http://tinyurl.com...] how well Obamacare is working. He cited New York lowering health insurance rates by about 50% and some people getting rebate checks for about $136 from their health insurance carriers.


But only two states, Vermont and New York, are projecting a decrease in health insurance rates while 45 states expect insurance rate to increase dramatically. [2. http://energycommerce.house.gov...] In California, where the legislature and executive are dominated by enthusiastic Democrats supporting Obamacare, rates on individual health insurance policies will rise 64-164%. [3. http://tinyurl.com...] In Washington State, also packed with Obamacare enthusiasts, individual rates will rise 34%-80%. [4. http://tinyurl.com...]

Obamacare was sold with the claim that insurance rates would drop immediately. Since passage, annual rates have increased by over $2000. The $136 rebate is a one time deal swamped the ongoing increases.


Democrat Sen. Max Baucus, who chaired the Senate hearing and supported the legislation called the implementation a “train wreck.” Unions, top financial backers of President Obama, have now condemned the plan. [5. http://tinyurl.com...] Union workers on the low end of the salary scale will lose wages as employers turn full time jobs into part time. The lavish health care plans enjoyed by high paid union workers will be subjected to a 40% tax.

Obamacare is a failure because it raises compliance costs and diminishes competition. Compare it to income taxes, where the government collects $2700 billion in taxes, but another $400 billion is paid to accountants to figure out what is legal and what is not. Obamacare already has about 20,000 pages of regulations in place, but they are just getting started. Moreover, tax rules are a once-a-year event, but physicians and hospitals must check regulation everyday for every patient.


My opponent attributes President Obama's deficit's to the bailouts and to wars started during the Bush Administration. The bank bailouts were passed during the Bush Administration, so the cost is charged to Bush. However, the Banks paid back about $400 billion during the Obama years, which offset Obama deficits. The wars cost about $150 billion per year, while Obama deficits have averaged about $1200 billion per year. President Obama claimed that 90%+ of the deficits were due to Bush polices. The Washington Post awarded that four Pinocchios as an extreme falsehood. [6. http://tinyurl.com...]


Obama's failed recovery

Obama said that if the Stimulus were passed the economy would bounce back. It was passed, and none of the claims were even close to being met. The chart below shows the predictions versus reality. [7. http://tinyurl.com...]


Obama economic claims versus reality.


Unemployment would now be 11.2% if people had not given up looking for jobs since Obama took office. Reagan inherited a financial crisis worse than the one Obama inherited. Under Reagan, the economy bounced back and the economy was generating 500,000 to 800,000 per month. Under Obama, the 150,000 month rate barely keeps up with new grads entering the labor force, so unemployment is stuck.


Obama's Failure of transparency and bipartisanship


Obama promised a new era in government. The debate on health care would be on C-SPAN and all legislation would be posted on the Internet before he signed it. He started making private deals on Obamacare almost immediately, including the famous kickbacks to Senators and a secret deal with drug makers. [8. http://tinyurl.com...] The legislation was passed in the middle of the night with literally no one having read it. The Baucus Committee in the Senate had some hearings, because Baucus defied leadership prohibitions on debate. Pelosi banned House hearings and debate. There has not been a more partisan Administration in memory. Bush passed the Medicare prescription drug plan and an education program with substantial support from Democrats. Obama simply decided not to fulfill his promises of bipartisanship, transparency, and open debate.


Obama ran in 2008 as been opposed to gay marriage. He only changed his position when he needed additional left-wing support for the 2012 election.


Obama has installed a Nanny State bureaucracy


Obama has moved decision making out of the legislature and into the hands of faceless bureaucrats who are never held accountable. Obamacare is the obvious one, with health care decisions made by a federal bureaucracy. There are private insurers, physicians, and hospitals, but what they are allowed to do is determined by government rule makers even more thoroughly than if they were government employees. Government employees are rarely punished for failure to obey rules, but “private” individuals can be put in jail for not obeying.

Dodd-Frank has put banking and finance under government control. Who gets a loan is now subject to Federal rules. A major cause of the economy failing to recover is that local banks cannot make loans to small businesses. It's illegal for banks to make a risky loan, but the specifics are undefined.


The Americans with Disabilities Act controls many of the details of building construction on the sole initiative of bureaucrats. The bureaucrats decided door knobs are banned, so door knobs are banned.


The Environmental Protection Agency has total authority over energy. The courts have upheld the authority of the EPA to control carbon dioxide, so if they want to require you to get a permit to exhale, theoretically they have the power to do so. Under Obama, the EPA required consumers to pay, through utility rates, $7 trillion over 90 years to prevent 0.00375 degree of global warming. [9. http://tinyurl.com...] That done without new taxes or legislation.

The bureaucracies have far more power than they have exercised. The EPA under Obama is afraid the Democrats from oil states will join Republicans to moves to ban fossil fuels. In health care and banking, the bureaucracies are just inefficient in writing the tens of thousands of pages of new regulations they are empowered to enact.


The bureaucracies will catch up and rule. Japan is a model for how this works. Japan has elected a new prime minister every year for many years, but each has proved powerless to substantially move the bureaucracy to new policies. [10. http://tinyurl.com...] The Japanese economy has been depressed for two decades. In California, Governor Jerry Brown banned discretionary travel, but large parts of the bureaucracy decided that obeying was not a good idea, so they didn't. [11. http://tinyurl.com...] That's a sign of things to come for the United States.



Obama has put in place a bureaucratic replacement for representative government.

Obama foreign policy has been a disaster



A pundit summarizes it well: American prestige has diminished with “... the administration of Barack Obama and his promise to “embrace a new era of engagement” and a “new way forward” with America’s enemies. In practice this has meant his solicitous “outreach” to thug regimes like Iran and Syria, the appeasing and unreciprocated “reset” of relations with Russia, the Carter-like pledges that America would be a “partner mindful of his own imperfections,” the undercutting and hounding of stalwart allies like Israel, the craven apologies to the Muslim world for a “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims,” and the abandonment of unsavory allies like Hosni Mubarak, who nonetheless better served America’s interests than the Muslim Brothers ...” [12. http://tinyurl.com...]

---

From the viewpoint of the Left, Obama is a failure because his incompetence has given government control a bad name. From the right, bureaucratic control and a failed recovery are alone enough evidence of failure. He has brought extreme partisanship and secrecy that fails his promise.

Debate Round No. 2
Junja

Pro

On bipartisanship, the selfish, stubborn and irrational mentality of the Republican Party is the true cause of the lack of progress and bipartisanship throughout all forms of government. It has been clear throughout Obama's two terms, that the Republicans have refused to give any sort of review or chance to any of Obama's proposals nor have they made any effort to increase bipartisanship or cooperation. Their behavior is the true cause of damage, and is what has truly plagued and slowed the progress of policies. Regardless of this stubborn, child-like behavior, Obama has continued to strive to make a difference for America and has ultimately brought this country from the deepest depths of economic turmoil the nation has ever seen and is leading what may be a slow but undeniable comeback. He's promised to bring bipartisan policies to the table but didn't ever say he would back down on his beliefs and bow down when it is clear that he is not given the chance he deserves as president to make change happen. It's simply pathetic that the same party that drove us into one of the worst eras of command the country, has the audacity to act in such stubborn and ignorance because they cannot accept the facts that 1. Their policies have failed the American people 2. That a black man is in power. These reasons are no excuses for these men to refuse to try to cooperate and selfishly abandon their people in a great time of need. So yes, Obama has had to take extra lengths to emplace policies when the most pathetic party in recent memory has refused to cooperate and compromise, but not nearly to the extent of your descriptions which borderlines conspiracy theories that in no way have credibility.

Obama may have not believed in gay marriage at the time of his first campaign, but has always been a firm believer in equal rights for homosexuals, and has proven so through multiple changes in policies and acts as President. This small shift in belief was nothing more than an evolution of his policies and a sad excuse that Republicans have used to justify their embarrassing loss as they remain in denial and oblivion in which they think the people actually support them.
I don't have much time, because unlike you, I have a life. I will disprove your other statements in the final round.
RoyLatham

Con


Success is not achieved by blaming others for failure


Pro claims that “the Republican Party is “the true cause of the lack of progress and bipartisanship throughout all forms of government.” Blaming the Republicans for Obama failures does not support the resolution that President Obama has been a success. Successful presidents like Reagan and Clinton convince opponents to compromise. Reagan had a Democrat Congress and achieved Social Security reform and immigration reform. Clinton worked with Gingrich and the Republican Congress to pass balanced budgets and landmark welfare reform. Obama has no bipartisan successes.


Even though blaming Republicans is an excuse for failure and not a claim of success, I'll address Pro's claims. The discussion sheds light on President Obama's promise of transparency. He was going to shepherd a new era of open debate, and certainly no Republican forced him to suppress Congressional debate, craft secret deals, and abandon regular order in legislating.


From May through October in 2009, Republicans asked every month for President Obama to meet with them to work out a compromise on health care, and every month President Obama refused to meet. [13. http://tinyurl.com...] The President finally arranged exactly one press event meeting with Congressional Republicans. The Republicans handed the President a copy of the Republican proposals on health care. The President had repeatedly stated that there were no Republican proposals.


The Democrat leadership effectively prohibited Republican participation in hearings on Obamacare, with one exception. Despite leadership objections, Sen. Max Baucus allowed Republican participation in hearings in the Senate Finance Committee he chaired. Not many of the Republican modifications were adopted, but over the many weeks of debate some changes were accepted by the Democrats. Then all of the work of the committee was discarded in favor of a new bill introduced by Sen. Baucus and adopted under the gimmick of reconciliation. It was 2700 pages and Baucus himself said he never read it. [14. http://tinyurl.com...]


The legislation was adopted without a single Republican supporter, and with 34 Democrats joining House Republicans to vote against it. Previous entitlement legislation, including President Bush's expansion of Medicare, were done with full hearings and bipartisan support. “For decades, a rule of thumb in Washington has said that there should be popular support and a bipartisan majority before approving an initiative that significantly affects tens of millions of Americans. Health-care reform—ObamaCare—has neither, yet Democrats want to impose it anyway.” [15. http://online.wsj.com...]


During the White House budget negotiations last year, Boehner reached a compromise with Obama that would have provided substantial spending cuts in return for hundreds of billions in new taxes. The next day, President Obama sabotaged the deal by demanding over a trillion dollars in additional tax increases. The Washington Post published a long article [16. http://articles.washingtonpost.com...] verifying “Obama,...upped the ante in a way that made it more difficult for Boehner — already facing long odds — to sell it to his party. … The actions of Obama and his staff during that period in the summer reflect the grand ambitions and the shortcomings of the president’s first term.”


President Obama has never gotten a budget approved by Congress, and this year was the first time he managed to get a budget through the Democrat controlled Senate. “Tired of watching as flailing leadership negotiations fail to produce any key legislation,” wrote The Washington Post, “senior lawmakers hope that a return to the old days of subcommittee hearings and bill markups, floor amendments and conference reports may offer a path forward on everything from immigration to a long-term budget plan.” [17. http://blog.heritage.org...]


Republicans have supported Obama on many issues of national defense, including drone strikes, the surge in Afghanistan, and intervention in Libya. Republican support is not unanimous, but it comes in the face of opposition from the President's fellow Democrat's. Republicans voted for Obama's tax bill at the start of 2013. [18. http://www.nytimes.com...]


The charge that Republicans reflexively vote against Obama is proved false by the serious attempts at compromise and the counter-examples of support on key issues.


Obama has tried to cover up failures


The Obama scandals are too many to detail, so I can only list a few. They may be incompetence or malfeasance, but there is no question that they are all failures.


The “fast and furious” scandal was the government setting up sale of a thousand automatic weapons to drug cartels, then losing track of the weapons rather than using them to lead to the drug bosses. Attorney General Holder signed off on the errant plan, but claimed no knowledge of it. By a vote of 255-67, including 17 Democrats, Holder received a criminal contempt of Congress citation for failing to turn over documents relevant to the investigation. [19. http://tinyurl.com...] There is no executive privilege for investigations of this sort, but the stonewalling strategy will keep it in the Courts for years.


The Benghazi scandal includes a failure to provide security for the diplomatic corps in Libya and the completely false attribution of the attack to a spontaneous demonstration against a video. The CIA knew immediately that it was an attack planned by terrorists, and Secretary Clinton was told the same night there was no demonstration. Obama inexcusable repeated the nonsense about a video long after it was known to be false. [20. http://tinyurl.com...]


Starting in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service targeted Tea Party groups for harassment. From early 2010 to late 2012 thirty-two progressive groups were grant tax exempt status and only four Tea Party groups were given exemptions, despite there being many more Tea Party applications. A flurry of approvals began after the start of Congressional scrutiny. The Administration blamed two rogue agents in Cincinnati, but an IRS lawyer and the alleged “rogue agents” agents have testified under oath that orders came from Washington. [21. http://tinyurl.com...; 22. http://tinyurl.com... ]


Obama does faithfully execute the law


The oath of office requires the President to uphold all the laws, including the laws he doesn't like. Each exception is a failure to uphold the oath. We understand that as a practical matter, no all laws can be 100% enforced, so there is discretion in only prosecuting egregious violations. However, the President issues blanket nullification.


The President decided to nullify immigration law and implement his version of the Dream Act by executive order. [23. http://tinyurl.com...] The blatant illegality offended many people who favored the Dream Act.


The law requires Obama to suspend military aid to Egypt after the recent military coup. Rather than go to congress and seek an exemption, he chose to ignore the law and provide only a token withholding of aid. [24. http://tinyurl.com...]


Intervention in Libya without Congressional approval was illegal. [25. http://dailycaller.com...]


The President made recess appointments to the National labor Relations Board when the Senate was not in recess. The courts ruled that the appointments were illegal, but Obama continues to pretend they are valid. [26. http://tinyurl.com...]


----


Keep in mind that Pro challenged me personally to the debate. He shouldn't be surprised he ended up in a debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Junja

Pro

Junja forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

My opponent's second round argument is telling. He essentially blamed Obama's failures on Republicans who wouldn't cooperate. That admits Obama has not been successful. I think that effectively concedes the debate, which resolved Obama has been successful.

I pointed out that there are Obama failures that have nothing to do with Republicans. President Obama promised a new era of openness in government. Republicans did not force Obama to make secret deals and shut down regular order in Congress. Regular order is the traditional process by which bills are introduced, Committees hold public hearings, the Bills are marked up in each house, and a conference committee produces a compromise to be voted upon. Under Obama, major legislation like Obamacare was introduced in final form and voted into law on a strictly partisan basis. Republicans did not prevent President Obama from keeping his promise to post legislation on the web before it became law. Republicans asked repeatedly to meet to discuss health care, and the President refused. Speaker Boehner accepted huge tax increases as part of a grand bargain on the budget, but after accepting, Obama changed his mind and killed the deal.

Many of the President's failure were a result of plain incompetence. His supporters on the Left count passing Obamacare as a success, but the implementation has been what Sen. Baucus calls a "train wreck." From the viewpoint of the Left, government is supposed to provide good solutions to the problems that free markets cannot. His bungling has made market solutions look much better. The Stimulus was supposed to bring the economy back to normal quickly. It miserably failed every projection, and the country is still mired in economic problems.

The Right is not happy either. Once the government takes over something, in modern times with mountains of regulations rather than seizing direct control, it's nearly impossible to undo the control. The country suffers for a very long time. President Obama has empowered an unchecked bureaucracy to control health care, banking, energy, construction, and other aspects of life. The bureaucracy will be around to tighten the noose long after Obama is gone.

Among President Obama's foreign policy failures are allowing the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to fail.

The scandals are inexcusable. Rather than the promised transparency, every scandal has been met with stonewalling.

Pro challenged me personally to this debate. I think Pro loses conduct for forfeiting the last round. I think he loses arguments for failing to respond to nearly all my arguments and for implicitly acknowledging failure by blaming Republicans for the failure. Pro loses sources for providing none, while I use twenty-six sources to support my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Classic socialism is when the government owns everything. Socialism 2.0, Obama's type --call it neo-socialism-- is where the government controls the use of property by detailed regulation. What's the point of owning property? It's so you can use it as you wish. The government doesn't need to own everything if it controls use according to the will of the governing elite. The elite is embodied in a bureaucracy that is not accountable to voters, like the Soviet bureaucracy.

"Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Dean " who is also a medical doctor " called for abolishing what Palin originally insisted was a death panel. 'One major problem [with Obamacare] is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them. There does have to be control of costs in our health-care system. However, rate setting " the essential mechanism of the IPAB " has a 40-year track record of failure" getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on.'"
http://www.inquisitr.com...

The panel was the justification for taking $700 billion out of Medicare and using the money to fund Obamacare. End-of-life costs are about 30% of Medicare, so one function of the panel is to limit the spending on patients based upon the expected increase in life expectancy. For example, there is a certain cancer treatment that costs $200K with an expected life extension of two years. The drug provides a complete cure to some patients, but it has no effect at all on most. The iPAB will decide if the treatment will be available or not.
Posted by DMiller584 3 years ago
DMiller584
Socialism is when the government owns everything. We are nowhere near that. Even within the health care sector under Obamacare we will not have socialized health care.
Death panels? Please site the exact reference in the law to these.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
I explain the Obama brand of socialism in the debate. If the government runs everything directly, then they get blamed for the inevitable failure. The new method is to empower a bureaucracy to make and enforce rules that determine all the important decisions that affect the economy. The Dodd-Frank rules will determine who can get loans and what the terms are. Obamacare sets up bureaucracy that will determine health care decisions. The EPA controls energy decisions. The principle is that the "smart people" in government should make all the decisions. (Howard Dean, who is a physician, recently discovered that bureaucracy is going to make all the decisions, including death panels, and got upset about it.) As things fail, the blame is put on public who just didn't fully embrace the wonderfulness of bureaucratic wisdom. But no government program ever is declared a failure, and no bureaucrat ever loses his job for failure. That's the essence of socialism.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
How is it that the Senate was forced to pass a budget of get their pay suspended? Republicans managed to get that into law. The reason the Senate doesn't want to vote is the same reason that the House votes redundantly on repealing Obamacare and other things. Republicans want every member to have a record to run on, will Democrats want to avoid having a record to run on.

It's true that some issues will not be resolved by a return to regular order, but many issues could be resolved. We would have the Keystone Pipeline, for example. Obamacare would have been voted down.

The "top ten socialist nations" list is just silly. How is it that North Korea and Vietnam don't make the list? China only began to prosper when they abandoned socialism and moved to an authoritarian form of capitalism. Authoritarian states prosper insofar as they allow free markets. Early Taiwan and South Korea prospered as authoritarian capitalist states. India starved under socialism and is prospering under capitalism.

Also odd that Greece didn't make the top ten list. They have the biggest welfare enterprise in Europe. The northern European states that are doing reasonably well are closer to heavily-taxed capitalist states than to socialism. They don't control markets nearly as much as the US. Moreover, they tend to oscillate by building up a welfare state until the economy goes sour, then reverting back to merit-based economies to build economic strength for the next dive.

The tests of socialism were in the 20th century. Twenty-three of the newly-independent countries in Africa adopted forms of democratic socialism. All failed. South America didn't start to proper until they began moving towards capitalism. Of course, the Soviet countries were the grand experiment of state socialism, and all failed.
Posted by DMiller584 3 years ago
DMiller584
continued --
.....his members behind the compromise worked out in conference. Internal conflict within the REP party has obstructed the normal process and will likely do so again to the determent of the country.
Also, regarding the "failure of socialist regimes":
http://blog.peerform.com...
http://www.dailykos.com...

I wonder why you think that Obamacare is "socialism".
Posted by DMiller584 3 years ago
DMiller584
The normal course of action is for both houses of Congress to pass a budget resolution and then a conference committee irons out a compromise, which then has to pass both chambers and get signed by the President. Both houses have passed budget resolutions, however no budget bill (actual legislation).
"To protect their thin Senate majority, Democrats avoided exposing their members to potentially damaging votes to raise taxes ahead of 2012 elections, arguing that a 2011 budget deal set spending levels for several years and made the non-binding budget legislation unnecessary.

But this year, under the February debt limit increase law, members of both the House and Senate faced pay suspensions if their chamber had failed to pass a budget by April 15.

Although lawmakers in both parties have called for a return to normal budgeting procedures after years of stop-gap spending bills and high-pressure deadlines, there is little chance that they can work out differences between the two budgets.

"The idea of conferencing them is kind of a joke. You would expect that if there were a chance of success, they wouldn't have planted flags on completely different planets," said Sean West, U.S. policy director at Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy.

Ultimately, it may take another 11th-hour deal between Obama and congressional Republicans to set a fiscal path forward as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling, he said. The Treasury is expected to exhaust its borrowing capacity around late July or early August.
In 2011, a similar fight over the debt limit shook financial markets and cost the United States its top-tier credit rating." http://www.reuters.com...

Compromise and obstruction are not the same thing. Compromise is the normal course of action. Due to the influence of the Tea Party members of the REP party, the leadership of the REP party in the House, John Boehner specifically could not manage to
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
I don't agree with the premise that obstruction is inherently bad. Obamas goal is to take power away from Congress and place it in the hands of an unelected bureaucracy that is effectively immune from the consequences of failure. Obstruction of that goal is a positive. Obstruction of authoritarian rule is exactly what should be done. I think it is offensive to suggest that progress equates to an unending increase in government control over every detail of life -- well, except for sex and marriage.

However, some things should be done, like passing a budget. The House has passed a budget every year. The normal course of action is for the Senate to pass it's version of a budget, then a conference committee works out a compromise. Ah, but the Senate has never passed a budget. Reid systematically prevents any of the House legislation from being considered, and the Senate doesn't pass it's own versions of legislation. The Keystone Pipeline would likely be approved by bipartisan agreement in both the House and Senate, only Reid prevents a vote. There is long list of obstructed legislation due to the Senate.

To defend Obama, you have to defend the idea that Obama's programs and goals should be accepted without compromise, otherwise it's obstruction. If that were not the case, regular order would get the budget and other such legislation into the joint committee process.
Posted by DMiller584 3 years ago
DMiller584
I actually agree with your last post here in the comments. I do feel that one reason that business people are frozen is the dysfunction in our government. The era of obstruction that commenced with the election of President Obama and the rise of the Tea Party is terribly harmful to our country as a whole. It is not that the opposition has ever just surrendered, but the way the House of REPs is conducting or rather not conducting business, is something I find appalling. 40 votes on appealing Obama Care is just crazy and doing nothing but pandering to the lowest political motivations. Refusing to allow issues to even come to a vote unless the majority of the majority are in favor is wrong too. "The Hastert Rule, also known as the "majority of the majority" rule, is an informal governing principle used by Republican Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s to maintain their speakerships[1] and limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the House.[2] Under the doctrine, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives will not allow a vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.[3] Its introduction is widely credited to former Speaker Dennis Hastert (1999-2007); However, Newt Gingrich, who directly preceded Hastert as Speaker (1995-1999), followed the same rule.[4] Hastert was vocal in his support of the rule stating that his job was "to please the majority of the majority."[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

The REP speaker has lost control of his own party due to the Tea Party members. He is allowing them to hold the country hostage to their demands to keep his position as Speaker. The issue of the debt ceiling is about to come up again and I dread it. The Tea Party members seem to be willing to allow this country to suffer another downgrade in credit rating, default on payments, and fail to issue Social Security checks to seniors.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
The CBO responds to Congressional requests under very carefully prescribed ground rules, so what comes out of their studies often is just a reflection of the assumptions given to them. For example, they apparently didn't include Obama's desired tax increases in the projections. The big omission, however, is that the Republican plan included substantial reduction in regulation and dramatic tax simplification. After a major recession, we expect a strong bounce back just from pent up demand. So if there is no bounce back we have to ask what the government has done to prevent it. In this case, it is not only actual regulation but the threat of future regulation. Obamacare brought 22 new taxes and enormous compliance costs. It will take years to sort out what all the costs are and what exactly is required. There are tens of thousands of pages of health care rules yet to be written. Dodd-Frank makes it illegal to make a risky loan, but the government is yet to specify what is "risky" under the law. No one knows if the EPA will impose cap and trade, with its enormous cost. We aren't recovering because business people are frozen, waiting for clarification of all the new rules.
Posted by DMiller584 3 years ago
DMiller584
Here are some different graphs:http://voices.washingtonpost.com...
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
JunjaRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's FF and insults. S&G were pretty much the same. Sources to Con since he actually used them and the only one Pro used really had no relevance whatsoever. Argument definitely to Con since he actually made some and didn't just ramble on nothing and attempting to blame bush and the republicans for all of poor obamas problems. Pro did not refute a one single argument of Cons. And in fact conceded that debate in his first sentence of the third round. On e again blaming someone else for obamas failure.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
JunjaRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pro technically gave up by forfeiting the last round but con had already won the debate long before the final round....
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
JunjaRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by DebaterAgent 3 years ago
DebaterAgent
JunjaRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job Con. Pro, could do better...
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 3 years ago
1dustpelt
JunjaRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF and insults. Spelling and Grammar for no comma at end of first sentence. The arguments were pretty obvious as Pro did not have any adequate responses to Con's arguments. Con used sources.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
JunjaRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
JunjaRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF