Resolved: Mitt Romney would make a better, more effective president than Barack OBAMA
Ok...Let's try this again...
First round: acceptance only.
You are only required to give citations for evidence if the opponent specifically requests it.
You may NOT use Fox News or MSNBC
All arguments must be clearly signposted
All opening arguments must have contentions to refer back to
This will NOT be a formal, LD, Policy or PoFo style debate.
You may NOT bring up new arguments in the last round.
1) I'm going to start out by bringing up good old-fashioned Keynesian economics. In an ecnomic crisis, it is necessary for the government to pump money into the economy to create jobs. This is pretty basic, highschool-level economics and so while it sounds really nice and convincing to promote "fiscal responsibility" it's realy much more prudent to spend money on the economy in order to create jobs, which would ultimately have a better long-term effect.
Remember the auto bailout? It was a tremendous success! Nearly a quarter million people were employed by the "Big Three" autodearlerships prior to the bailout. It is fair to say that many of these people would have lost their jobs had the Big Three gone bankrupt, as well as their health benefits and a lot of their potential retirement money. The esimated value of all this is roughly $145,600 per year (before tax). Let's say that if the government had not stepped in, half of the workers at the Big Three would have been laid off, that's roughly 125,000. If this LOW BALL estimate is true, then that would mean that the auto bailout saved $18 Billion dollars from exiting the economy. That isn't considering the money investors would have lost on these copanies had they not received TARP's money.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that this bailout was a tremendous success, Mitt Romney has come out against the auto bailout and rejects the idea of ANY government bailout of ANY KIND.
2) Obamacare is a law that many conseratives claim is fiscally irresponsible and uneffective. However, as I will show, the ACA is both an effective law and one that reduces the deficit. Here's Ezra kelin of the Washington Post "'CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.'" http://www.washingtonpost.com.... Done. Obamacare, by the CBO's best estimates, saves about a trillion dollars over the next 9-10 years.
Now let's look at what it does: It provides coverage for an etimated 30 million people, only 7 million of which wil ha to pay for it out of their own pocket. In addition, it gives people with existing coverage more benefits. For example, people can no longer be exempt from pre-existing condition coverage, young people can stay on their parents' plan until they're 26, allows free abortion coverage, and insured people can no longer "run out of coverage."
Even though this was originally Mitt Romney's idea, he has since denounced and called it "the biggest tax in history." Whether or not he is panering is irrelevant. We must judge Mitt Romney by what he is saying NOW, by what he is campaigning on, and he has said that once he gets into office, he would "repel Obamacare the day I get into office."
3) Now let's look at the issue of income inequality. Obama has taken a strong stance on this issue while Mitt Romney has virtually rejected it as a problem. Make no mistake, ncome inequality is an issue. Here are periods in history that have been marked and defines by a large wealth gap: France 1789, Russia 1917, Rome 5-6th centuries AD, USA 1930s, Great Britain 19th century. ALL of these periods were marked by significant government corruption and major economic and social problems. All of these periods experienced massive uprisings because of corruption and economc problems. Mitt Romney would NOT RAISE TAXE SIGNIFICANTLY on the very wealthy, while Obama h pledged repeatedly that he would raise taxes on the top 10% essentially because of trickle-down economic theory (cutting taxes on job creators means more jobs). By this logic, we should see an inverse correlation across countries between employment rate and tax rate on millionaires. After having skimmed trough various jobless figures and tax rates. (http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org...) it becomes easy to see that there is no correlation between employment numbers an tax rate.
It is plain to see that Mitt Rmney has verylittle understanding of how the economy works, and for that reason alone, it becomes necessary to prevent Romney from entering the white house.
Mitt was born in Detroit on March 12, 1947. He apprenticed as a lath and plaster carpenter and sold aluminum paint before beginning a career that brought him to the head of American Motors and then the governorship of Michigan.
Mitt married his wife, Ann, in 1969. They first met in elementary school when he was a Cub Scout; he remembers tossing pebbles at her when she rode by on a horse. When they met again years later at a friend's house, he was smitten. Between them, they have five sons and eighteen grandchildren, who are the center of their lives.
Like any family, the Romneys have faced hardship: Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998, and more recently fought a battle with breast cancer. She credits her husband's unwavering care and devotion to her for helping her through these ordeals.
Mitt is not a career politician. He has spent most of his life in the private sector, giving him intimate knowledge of how our economy works. But he has also been an outstanding public servant. In one chapter of his distinguished career, he reversed the decline of a state mired in recession. In another chapter, he salvaged the 2002 Winter Olympic Games from certain disaster.
When Mitt was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, the state was in severe disarray, its budget was out of balance, spending was soaring, and taxpayers were being required to pay more and more in taxes for diminishing services. The state economy was in a tailspin, with businesses cutting back on investment or even closing, and unemployment ticking up. Mitt made hard decisions that brought state spending under control. He restructured and consolidated government programs, paring back where necessary and finding efficiencies throughout.
Facing a state legislature dominated by Democrats, Mitt cast more than 800 vetoes as he brought conservative principles to state government. He cut red tape for small businesses, signed into law job-creating incentives, and fought hard to bring new businesses to the state. He eliminated a $3 billion deficit without borrowing or raising taxes. By 2007, at the end of Mitt's term, the state had accumulated a $2 billion rainy day fund in its coffers. This stringent fiscal discipline provided an essential backdrop for economic recovery. While Mitt was in office, the state unemployment rate fell from 5.6% to 4.7% and the Massachusetts economy added tens of thousands of new jobs.
America faces exceptional challenges. Mitt Romney is an exceptional man with unique qualifications to lead our country through perilous times, restoring our strength at home and abroad. In 1999, the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was on the verge of collapse. Thanks to his reputation as a superb manager, Mitt was asked to take over. The event had been bogged down in a bid-rigging scandal, sponsors were fleeing, and the budget was bleeding red ink. The attacks of September 11, 2001, just months before the start date, created a security nightmare. Some were contemplating scaling back the competition or even moving it out of the country.
Mitt set to work. In a remarkably short period, he revamped the organization's leadership, trimmed the budget, and restored public confidence. He oversaw an unprecedented security mobilization to assure the safety of the athletes and millions of international visitors, staging one of the most successful games ever held on U.S. soil.
Mitt's impressive skills did not come out of nowhere. He began his career in business.
After graduating from Brigham Young University in 1971, he earned dual degrees from Harvard Law and Harvard Business School. After working as a business consultant for several years, Mitt founded the investment firm Bain Capital in 1984. Under his leadership, Bain Capital helped to launch or rebuild over one hundred companies, including household names such as Staples, Bright Horizons, and The Sports Authority. As Bain Capital was growing in prominence, Mitt returned to his old consulting firm, Bain & Company, as CEO. In a time of financial turmoil at the company, he led a successful turnaround.
It's not plagiarism if I admit the source. There was simply no better way to word the introduction to the amazing Romney.
Here's how Romney stood on issues in Massachussetes:
Now let's look where he is:
Let's look at what he actually did: A soaring debt is not an economic indicator of financial collapse. A much better indicator is unemployment. Why? The only conceivable effect debt has on an entity is higher borrowing rates. http://www.doleta.gov.... When Romney took office in January 2003, the national unemployment rate was 5.8%. This puts MA just below the national unemployment rate, giving absolutely no reason to believe Romney had anything to do with creating jobs. In the year Mitt Romney left office, 2007, the national unemployment rate was 4.6%. This clearly illustrates that Mitt Romney had little to do with puting people back to work.
So, this being said, Mitt Romney followed Keynesian economic theory to the letter. In a good economy, a debt is a BAD thing, and if he did achieve a debt suplus, good on him. That's Keynesian economics for you. However, he is NOT promoting that now. He has apparently completey abandonded that principle and has become a real right-winger intent on cutting the deficit (Which really isn't a big problem).
I'm going to take two things directly from FactCheck.org: Massachusetts added more net jobs during Romney’s four years in office than during the four-year period of either his predecessor or successor. But — that ignores the national recessions before and after Romney’s time in office. If you look at how Massachusetts stacked up on job creation compared with other states, Romney actually fared worse than his predecessor and successor.
And here's one about him not rising taxes "Yes — Romney never raised personal income taxes. But — in order to balance the budget, Romney increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars" The report goes on to say later that he ALSO closed corporatetax loopholes, something which he has come out against inthe presidentia campaign. http://www.factcheck.org...
If FactCheck.org (a nonprofit) should be believed over Mitt Romney's campaign website (which has a HUGE incentive to put a spin on pretty much everything) then Mitt Romney deserves no credit for having practiced the principles he is now promoting.
Now let's look at his incentives. Since you're bringing them up, the burden is on you to tell me what those incentives entailed. Were they across-the-board tax cuts? Like he's proposing now? Or where they tax cuts that kicked in only if the company started highering people? Or where they not tax cuts at all, but rather some sort of program that exempts small businesses from taxes for the first cuple years to encourage growth? The fact is, if it was anything BUT across-the-board tax cuts, it is NOT what he is promoting now. All three of these proposals are not "fiscally responsible." In fact, they are all throwing money away at businesses.
Winter Olympics record.
Running a country is slightly different from running a city's winter olympics. The main problem in 1999 was corruption, and he did a fantastic job at cleaning up corruption. This, however, doesn't exactly prepare you to be the next president of the US. I will admit Obama, prior to getting elected, did not have a lot of experience going into the race for president, however now that he's had four years of experience, he is MUCH BETTER SUITED to running a nation than Mitt Romney is. Mitt Romney may have successfully introduced fiscal conservatism to the games, but, as I have already proven, fiscal conservatism is exactly the wrong strategy to employ as president of the United States.
In addition, you have not managed to refute a single one of my contentions.
I shall now attack Obama as brutally as you decided to attack Romney. If attacking the opposition, without promoting your own side of the debate is how you wish to go about this then I shall happily oblige.
Inauguration: to commence officially or formally; initiate.
Progressive(noun): A person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
Before I display the debate I shall give definitions of technical terms used in debate. It is not that I think you are too uneducated to know them but I want to be 100% clear to any voter who may not know the term exactly.
Executives are judged by results. In terms of the economic results produced during the first 2.5 years of his first term, Obama is the worst president of the past 60 years.
Ten presidents have been elected since 1952: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama. Let's look at how each of them stacked up against the following five important measures of economic performance:
1) The average real GDP growth rate during the first 10 calendar quarters of his first term
2) The percentage point change in the CPI inflation rate between the December prior to his inauguration and July of the third year of his first term.
3) The percent change in the "Real Dow" (the Dow Jones Industrial Average divided by the price of gold in dollars per ounce) between the December prior to his inauguration and July of the third year of his first term
4) The percentage point change in the unemployment rate between the December prior to his inauguration and July of the third year of his first term
5)The percent change in total employment (BLS Household Survey) between the December prior to his inauguration and July of the third year of his first term
If we rank the ten presidents listed above in numeric order in each of these categories based upon the results they produced, and then calculate the average of their five individual scores, we get the following overall presidential rankings, from best (1) to worst (10):
7. Bush 41
9. Bush 43
It may be surprising to see Jimmy Carter ranked ahead of Ronald Reagan. Remember, however, that the comparison is only between the economic results achieved during their first 2.5 years in office. As it happened, the economy went downhill fast during Carter's final 1.5 years in office, while the last 18 months of Reagan's first term was marked by rapid GDP growth and job creation.
Obviously, Alter wants Obama to be reelected. Because Reagan won 49 states in November, 1984 despite his poor economic record through July, 1983, it is reasonable to believe that Obama could win in 2012 if he produced strong GDP and employment growth between now and the election. However, it is very unlikely that he will accomplish this.
Obama's fundamental problem is his flawed mental model of how the economy works. His recent speeches suggest that he has not yet recognized his conceptual errors. Rather, all of the indications are that he will attempt to "double down" on the policies that have kept our economy mired in the worst recession/recovery since the Great Depression.
First and foremost, Obama continues to believe that a weak, unstable, manipulated U.S. dollar is good for the economy. Bush 43 believed the same thing, and waited in vain for a surge in exports to boost the economy, even as the dollar lost 69% of its value against gold. Obama took up Bush's vain vigil, and stood idly by while value of the dollar in terms of gold fell by another 53% (for a total of 85% since Jan. 20, 2001).
Obama remains firmly in the grip of the Keynesian Superstition, which is the belief that government deficits boost the economy. He didn't seem to notice that his $862 billion in "stimulus" vanished without a trace. Also, the fact that annualized GDP growth slowed from 2.33% (4Q2010) to 0.36% (1Q2011) at the moment that his second round of "stimulus" (the 2.0 percentage point cut in payroll taxes and yet another extension of unemployment benefits) took effect seems to have made no impression on him.
It is this superstitious belief in Keynesianism that led White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to lecture a reporter from The Wall Street Journal that extending unemployment benefits would boost the economy. It is also what prompted Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to claim that every dollar spent on food stamps adds $1.84 to GDP.
Obama is a Progressive, and Progressives believe that unelected, unaccountable "experts" can make better economic decisions than "We the People", expressing our preferences via free markets. They also seem to believe that regulation upon regulation can be piled upon the private sector at no cost to jobs or economic growth.
Willard Mitt Romney is a man who has it all. A vast personal fortune, a successful private career, a perfect family life, a sharp mind, a charismatic personality, and he is very easy on the eyes (heck, even his name has a touch of stardust about it). So why does 64-year old Romney continue to struggle to capture the hearts and minds of the Republican heartland?
His poll numbers have consistently hovered in the 23-25% region, and despite the short term hiccups caused by the mini-surges of Bachmann, Perry and now Cain, his support base seems to have held pretty solid over the past two years. His critics charged that his greatest strength, the ability to build a consensus from diverging factions, is also his biggest weakness. He appears to be intent on pleasing everyone, which lends an appearance of him being a flip-flop on his stances. This characteristic was used in devastating fashion in 2007/08 by Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and John McCain to derail his campaign.
Perhaps a better way to look at the quarter billion dollar man is through his own eyes, that of a financial investor. Mitt hedges his position across a broad portfolio, which, while preventing the chance of a mega payday, also drastically reduces the chances of a catastrophic loss. In other words, he doesn't believe in putting all of his eggs in a single basket. Instead, the grandfather of fourteen is intent on keeping hypothetical baskets of varying sizes to hypothetically fit as wide a spectrum as possible of the hypothetical egg demographics.
Cognizant of this perceived vulnerability, Mitt has adopted a very organized and low-keyed strategy for this nomination cycle. He has chosen to skip all the straw polls and remain in the shadows of his rivals, and only making controlled media appearances. Mitt remembers very clearly how brightly his star shone in the 2008 race, and how quickly it faded as well. He has revealed his hand only several times the past year, and Rick Perry unfortunately, appears to bear the majority of those excursions.
Former advisor to President George W. Bush, and 2008 Republican nominee John McCain, Mark McKinnon, concurs, stating,
"Romney is playing things very methodically and deliberatively. I think he understands the physics of this game very well now and is carefully calibrating his approach to 2012."
I'm going to quote you. "Attacking Romney and not even once promoting Obama is not the way to win this debate."
Reread what you have written. It seems you did not heed your own advice. I have already defended Obama and you have STILL failed to successfully refute sound Keynesian economics. You have also failed to provide a link between the reduction in economic growth and the economic stimulus. Really, the only reason I haven't defended Obama so far is because you have not attacked him.
You also seem to be under the illusion that the one person who should receive the blame for a bad economy is the president. In a market economy, like the one we have, then who should receive he blame when the economy doesn't function? The DRIVERS of the economy, the business man, the bankers. If you believe Obama SHOULD receive the blame for the economy, then you are conceding that the driver of the economy SHOULD be the government.
As a final note, your list of the pesidents by economic performance is not groundbreaking a makes total sense. Because all of these presidents arepresidents since WWII, then it follows that the worst recession snce WWII would have the worst numbers since WWII. Essentially wh you are doing is restating that this has been the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. You are not proving why that is, OR that this recession is Obama' fault.
You have also gone outside your definition of "progressive" by writing "Progressives believe that unelected, unaccountable "experts" can make better economic decisions than "We the People", expressing our preferences via free markets. They also seem to believe that regulation upon regulation can be piled upon the private sector at no cost to jobs or economic growth." Don't tell me what I believe. Responsible regulation and promoting the lower and middle classes is the way to increase CONSUMER SPENDING, which as well all know is what drives an economy.
In response to your assertion that the annualized GDP has dropped b/c of the second round of stimulus. You have shown correlation w/ out causation. You have not controlled for any of variables. You have not given ANY evidence to indicate that this stimulus of $862 Billion slowed the economy by almost 2% (Which is an absolutely ridiculous notion). If the annual GDP is roughly $14 Trillion, then that is roughly 6% of the annual budget.
Using similar reasoning, I shall now defend Obama's record on the value of the dollar. Inflation rate is not a relevant economic indicator in a recession. Once again, you have absolutely failed to refute Keynesian economics (which you have failed to grasp conceptually). I have already defined Keynesian economics, and it is, put simply, the belief that, IN ECONOMIC RECESSIONS, it is necessary for the government to spend to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Rather than the alternative which would be to cut spending, which would destroy lots and lots of jobs. In good times, however, it is necessary to pursue fiscal responsibility. THIS is the core of Keynesian economics, so the statement that Keynesianism says that a bigger deficit means a better economy is almost totally false.
I'd also like for you to give more evidence to your assertion that the $862 Billion has "vanished with out a trace," because I have evidence to the contrary. From what source is this from? I'd also like you to clarify if you mean the auto stimulus or the bank stimulus.
This is all in defense of Obama's economic stimulus. My opponent has completely neglected to refute the effectiveness of Obamacare and hasn't even touched the income inequality debate.
The stimulus was premised on the economic model known as Keynesianism: the intellectual legacy of the late English economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesianism doesn't work, never has worked, and never will work.
There's no real mystery about why Keynesianism fails. There are numerous reasons why and they've been known for decades. Keynesians have an unrealistic and unsupportable view of how the economy works and how people make decisions.
Keynesian policy advocates focus primarily on the short run with no regard for the future implications of current events and they assume that all economic decision-makers do the same. Consider the following quote by John Maynard Keynes: "But the long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean will be flat again."
After passage of the stimulus package, Lawrence Summers, Obama's chief economic advisor at the time, often said that the spending should be "timely, targeted, and temporary." Although those sound like desirable objectives, they illustrate the Keynesian focus on the short term. Sure it would be convenient if you could just spend a bunch of money and make the economy get well, but it's not that simple.
The "Chicago School" is the primary source of serious research and analysis related to the Keynesian model. Two Chicago School conclusions, in particular, make it clear where Keynesian policies run aground. The two theories are the "permanent income hypothesis" and the theory of "rational expectations."
The "permanent income hypothesis" was how Milton Friedman termed the findings of his research on the spending behaviour of consumers. The MIT Dictionary of Economics defines the permanent income hypothesis as "The hypothesis that the consumption of the individual (or household) depends on his (or its) permanent income. Permanent income may be thought of as the income an individual expects to derive from his work and holdings of wealth during his lifetime."
Keynes was not known for his research or empirical efforts. Keynesianism is definitely not an evidence-based model of how the economy works. So far as I know, Keynes did no empirical studies. Friedman was a far more diligent researcher and data collector than was Keynes. Friedman fit the theory to the data, rather than vice versa.
Another of the Chicago School's broadsides against Keynesianism is the theory of "rational expectations." It's a theory for which the 1995 Nobel Prize for Economics was awarded to Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago. As economic theories go, it is relatively straightforward. It essentially states that "individuals use all the available and relevant information when taking a view about the future." (MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics) The rational expectations hypothesis is the simple assertion that individuals take into account their best guesses about the future when they make decisions. That seemingly simple concept has profound implications.
Voluntary exchange is an even more fundamental feature of our economy than is the market. A market is any arrangement that brings buyers and sellers together. In other words, the primary purpose of a market is to make
voluntary exchange possible.
Voluntary exchange leaves large amounts of control in the hands of private individuals and businesses. The market relies on carrots rather than sticks, rewards rather than punishment. The actors, therefore, need to be induced to move in certain desired directions rather than simply commanded to do so. This is the basic reason why incentives are such an important part of economics. If not for voluntary exchange, incentives wouldn't much matter.
In designing economic policy in the context of a market economy it becomes important to take into account what actually motivates people and how they make choices. If you want to change behavior in a voluntary exchange economy, you have to change incentives. Keynesian policies do not take that essential step.
The federal government's share of GDP has gone from 19% to 24% during Obama's time in the White House. A larger government share of GDP ultimately necessitates higher taxes or more debt. In and of themselves, higher taxes retard economic growth because of their impact on incentives. The disincentive effect of higher taxes illustrates why big government is far costlier than it first appears.
It's no accident that Keynesianism is so popular with liberals. It blends well with their unquenchable thirst for expansive government. It doesn't work for the economy but it works for them. The obvious failure of Keynesianism is further evidence of the bankruptcy of liberalism.
Keynesianism is essentially all the Democrats have. It's a one-trick pony. That one trick hasn't worked and now Dems are floundering with nothing more to offer.
All but one member of the president's original economic team has exited. According to liberal columnist Ezra Klein, "Lawrence Summers and Christina Romer were two of the most influential Keynesians in the country. Obama didn't just have a team of Keynesians. He had a Keynesian all-star team."
Now the president has a Keynesian all-gone team. It will be a brighter day for USA when Keynesianism itself is gone for good.
President-elect Barack Obama has said that very soon after his inauguration on Tuesday he will meet with top U.S. military leaders to discuss priorities. During the election campaign he said he would give the military a new mission in Iraq. But priorities have changed since then and now the meeting may focus more on Afghanistan, where Mr. Obama is expected to implement a troop increase that President Bush promised.
The president-elect had said he wanted most U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. But late last year, the Bush administration signed an agreement with Iraq that takes a different approach, requiring the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities by June, and the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the entire country by the end of 2011.
It is not clear exactly what orders Obama will give, but he has said he will listen to the concerns of top military officers before making any final decisions.
One of the main concerns he will hear relates to Afghanistan, where the U.S. commander has asked for 14,000 more combat troops and several thousand more support troops. The new president's appointee for Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy, was asked about that at her Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday. "I actually think the intent of both President-elect Obama and (Defense) Secretary (Robert) Gates is to move as quickly as possible. I have not yet been briefed on the details in terms of what would be required to do that. But I do believe that in principle we should be moving as quickly as possible," she said.
But Pentagon officials say moving quickly to add troops in Afghanistan means reducing troop numbers in Iraq. General David Petraeus, the former U.S. commander in Iraq who now has responsibility for the entire Middle East and Central Asia region, says he, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the new U.S. Iraq commander, General Ray Odierno, believe the United States needs to be careful about removing troops from Iraq too quickly. "The ambassador and General Odierno and I have reminded everyone, it is our view that the progress does remain fragile. It does remain reversible," he said.
As this is the last round, I will refrain from presenting anyew arguments.
I will, however, attack his evidence.
In the last round of a debate, it is important to take a step back and look at the debate as a whole.
Which one of us has used better evidence?
I think the answer is very plain to see.
Although I have fewer citations, it is largely because most of what I have said are historical facts. In addition, as clearly stated, sources are only needed if the opponent asks for it, which he has not. (Although if you want some numbers on the auto industry, SHAZAM: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...)
Looking further at my opponent's evidence, the vast, VAST majority of it is from biased sources. My opponent's opening argument, for example, cites the Romney capaign exclusively which is an organization much more committed to getting Romney elected than to telling the truth. Just like the Obama campaign, which is the very reason why I have not used them or cited them. One of the arguably BETTER sources is his sources from The American Spectator, although it does have a very conservative bias.
Now let's look at this paragraph:
"The president-elect had said he wanted most U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. But late last year, the Bush administration signed an agreement with Iraq that takes a different approach, requiring the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities by June, and the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the entire country by the end of 2011."
This doesn't have any place in the debate and is very clearly out dated. Although it does strength Obama's position on his foreign policy record because he followed up on Bush's plan to get out of Iraq completely by the end of 2011.
On to his attack of Keynesianism. I won't bring up any new points, I will simply point out the problems with his quote of Keynes.
First, the quote:
"But the long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean will be flat again."
I am going to attack the quote because it has been fundamentally misinterpreted by my opponent. In his quote, Keynes isn't saying "screw the long term" he is simply saying that "In tempestuous seasons" (in economic downturns) the "long term" is not what we should be worrying about. Because, in the long term, we are all dead. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't focus on the long term, but rather that in economic downturns we should focus on getting out of recession before focusing on the long term.
This quote don't actually support his claim that Keynesians like me believe that we should go into massive debt during good years. As a follower of Keynes, I have stated numerous times that because of Keynesianism, I support deficit reduction during good years, and economic stimulus during bad years.
Now, I am just going to say one more thing about his Keynesianism attack.
"There's no real mystery about why Keynesianism fails. There are numerous reasons why and they've been known for decades. Keynesians have an unrealistic and unsupportable view of how the economy works and how people make decisions." My opponent provides no specifics. Therefore,withou evidence to back up this claim, his point is invalid. My opponent has not provided a single example of a failed Keynesianism policy and has not been able to prove why that policy failed because of the principle behind it rather than the executionof it.
First, allow me to outline why I win in a general overview.
My opponent has cosistently failed to give proper causation i.e, he has shown correlation between two things but hasn't even attempted to show that one thing causes the other. For example, there is a startling statistic that shows piracy decreases at the same rate that CO2 emissions increase. Does this mean pirates are good for the environment? Of course not! In this case, there is corrolation, but absolutely no causation. The same is true for virtually all of his evidence.
I am going to now move on to the specific arguments.
Having won all of the ignificant issues this debate has boiled down to, I urge a STRONG negative vote on this issue.
I thank my opponent for a very interesting and intense debate :)
p.s I apologize if a lot of this in here apear to have letters missing, for some reason the computer is glitching out and deleting some of the letters I type. I've tried my best to eliminate all of the mistakes, but I'm not perfect. Thank you all :)
My opponent didn't manage to counter even one of my points regarding Romney, only the economic nonsense of Obama being good, ok yes it's good but so is the republican economic system, he never managed to attack that! HE didn't counter ANY points only the sources of the amazing points and that, is that.
Vote Romney for USA.
Vote Obama for Obama.