Ron Paul does not have the most socially beneficial domestic policies in the 2012 presidential race.
My opponent and I tried to do this debate previously but my opponent got unlucky with the timer and had to forfeit a round, so we'll do it again! Note that I don't actually care about American politics a lot so this should be an education for me!
This first round is to clarify rules, set up definitions and provide a framework for the debate.
There will be no need to cite candidates policies with sources.
Our opening rounds should contain the same arguments as in our previous debate.
Forfeiting a round means forfeiting the debate.
This debate is set in the United States of America.
3 debate rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters.
Voters please actually read the debate, not vote for your favorite.
As an alternative to Ron Paul, I will argue that likely democratic nominee Barack Obama has the most socially beneficial domestic policies in the 2012 presidential race. In round two I will go over his key policies and explain why they're so awesome. In round three I will examine Ron Paul's policies and why they're not as great as they seem. In round four I will tie everything together and show why Ron Paul's policies are not the best for US society.
I wish my opponent good luck!
I sincerely thank my opponent for starting this debate. The previous two times I instigated this debate I received acceptances, yet no responses.
Definitions from Princeton Wordnet Dictionary:
societal: relating to human society and its members
beneficial: promoting or enhancing well-being
domestic: of concern to or concerning the internal affairs of a nation
policy: a line of argument rationalizing the course of action of a government
Round 1: I'm laying out the framework and definitions!
Round 2: Demostrate the keen logic and morality behind Ron Paul's superior policies.
Round 3: Critique Barack Obama's dismal, failing, socialist policies to exhibit their detriments.
Round 4: Respond to rebuttal, and present voting issues.
This verbal duel will commence at Pro's leisure.
There can be little doubt that the United States of America faces a number of issues, both in the short and long term. Over the last four years, we have witnessed the president of the United States implement a number of long-term solutions to some very immediate problems, while providing the framework for America to face the future. Note that Obama's 2012 campaign has barely launched, so expect to see even grander policies than these popping up soon. Still, from what we know already, Ron Paul's policies are inferior to Obama's.
The Obama plan is to continue to push America, as they have done for the last four years, towards prosperity.
So think back to four years ago.
America's economy was dead. Obama created the National Export Initiative, which will double US exports by 2015. Obama also signed three trade agreements, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Obama created tax incentives for innovation, and cut taxes for small businesses 17 times (and he has said he will continue to do so) to help create jobs. He also passed legislation to end taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street. But the effects of the economic catastrophe are still being felt. Businesses are recovering, but if Obama's programmes end now, you can expect the recovery to end too. Unemployment is still a worry. That's why Obama proposes his American Jobs Act to keep Americans working, andincrease the pace of job creation. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is still in its infancy, and needs the protection of a supportive president to nurture their ability to protect ordinary folk from unfair practices. Creating jobs and exports, supporting small business and ending Wall Street bailouts are, as they always have been, Barack Obama's priorities. That's good for American society because it gets them working, it gets them profiting, it supports innovation and it keeps them from exploitation.
American healthcare was the subject of international ridicule. Hospital waiting times were ridiculous. Few people could afford health insurance, and those that could not were sometimes denied treatment. The cost to the government of healthcare was at a historic high. Thanks to Obama's leadership and his Affordable Care Act, insurance is no longer the domain of an elite few. Millions of Americans are now able to get treatment for conditions. Small businesses were given tax credits to help them pay for the premiums. Obama introduced transparency to the health insurance industry, free preventative care, and ended discrimination against women. But healthcare is far from perfect. That's why Obama wants to extend free preventative care and continue to ensure his law is not repealed. He wants families to see the extra $2000 of health savings he has promised them by 2019. He wants the American budget to see the $217 billion in deficit reductions from healthcare alone that his law guarantees. That's great news for American society as it means that people will live richer, healthier, and ultimately happier lives.
America wasn't secure. Under Barack Obama's leadership, more Al Quaeda figureheads were killed or captured than under all of the previous president's three terms combined. Obama ended the United States operations in Iraq and moved quickly to bring a decisive end to the war in Afghanistan. He signed an executive order ending most torture, and closed all secret CIA detention facilities. But the war in Afghanistan is not yet finished. America needs a president with a proven track record of ending war to end this war too. He wants to expand and improve veteran's benefits. He wants to broaden America's international relations, reaching out to foreign countries, for example, with more trade agreements. He wants to continue to work with countries around the world, as he has done with Russia, to abolish nuclear weapons. With these programmes, American society will be more secure, well-defended, and well-positioned to deal in a friendly fashion with other nations. There's a fine line between world-policing and isolationism, and Obama treads it very well.
American schools were a C+ at best. Barack Obama doubled financial aid investment to help millions of kids from poor and middle class families attend university. He saved hundreds of thousands of jobs that teachers were on the brink of losing. Obama also invested $2 billion in competitive grants for community colleges and made student loans more student-friendly. But there is still not enough equality of opportunity in education. Support for schools and teachersneeds to be expanded, and Barack is the man to do it, with his ongoing "Race to the Top" programme. Helping all students get a good education has always been one of Barack's top priorities, so he wants to increase the availability of grants further. If American society is to be prosperous, every American child needs to have the education to compete with the rest of the world. Barack Obama delivers that.
What we have seen over the last four years is just the beginning.
There can be little doubt that all of these policies and priorities are socially beneficial. The question in this debate is whether Ron Paul's proposals are more beneficial than these. What you're about to hear from my opponent is a rejection of most of these programmes (with perhaps only one or two exceptions). My opponent needs to prove that these policies are more socially beneficial than those I have outlined already. I wish him all the best for this enterprise.
“I want to use all my strength, to resist the notion that I can run your lives, or run the economy, or run the world. I want to use that strength to repeal and reject that notion and stand up and defend the principles of liberty."
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
It is because I agree with the words of Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington that I strongly negate the resolution.
Contention 1: Ron Paul’s economic policy would reduce the national debt, reduce unemployment, and restore prosperity for Americans.
Ron Paul correctly predicted the great recession and the housing bubble, while Keynesians and establishment media and Republicans criticized him. When he was proved right our President and Congress used it as an excuse to expand government intervention and power on an unprecedented level increasing our debt tremendously.
Budget: As President, Ron Paul would cut federal spending by $1 trillion the first year, veto any unbalanced budget, and refuse to raise the debt ceiling to curtail reckless spending and government waste.
Intelligent policy: He’d fight to fully audit (and then end) the Federal Reserve System, which has enabled the over 95% reduction of what our dollar can buy and continues to create money out of thin air to finance future debt; he’d legalize sound money so the government gets serious about the dollar’s value. He’d end the corporate stranglehold on the White House (he’s getting the Occupy vote), drive down gas prices by allowing offshore drilling, abolish highway motor fuel taxes, increase the mileage reimbursement rates, and offer tax credits to individuals and businesses for the use and production of natural gas vehicles. He’d eliminating the income, capital gains, and death taxes to ensure you keep more of your hard-earned money and are able to pass on your legacy to your family without government interference, he’d oppose all unfunded mandates and unnecessary regulations on small businesses and entrepreneurs. Finally, he‘d eliminate the minimum wage which is the greatest source of unemployment in this country in history.
This economic policy would allow genuine economic growth, abolish socialist policies, and create real jobs.
Contention 2: Ron Paul’s energy policy would allow America to become energy independent.
He understands that the free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs. Unfortunately, decades of misguided federal action have helped lead to skyrocketing fuel prices, making it even more difficult for hardworking families to make ends meet. As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:
Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.
Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers. He will lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power and eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington. Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies. It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy.
Contention 3: Ron Paul’s drug policy would reduce crime, government spending, and benefit society in many ways.
Because certain desirable drugs are illegal:
Organized crime syndicates and thousands of smaller gangs take control over the drugs
With increased strictness on drug trafficking and distribution, gangs are forced to become more violent
People are imprisoned for smoking and selling marijuana and other drugs, causing taxpayers billions
The government spends $19 billion a year to enforce drug laws
“The Federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime.” -Ron Paul
His position is shared with almost every economist, statistician, and police chief, including Joseph D. McNamara, the former chief of police in Kansas city. He stated, “about $500 worth of heroin or cocaine in a source country will bring as much as $100,000 on the streets of an American city. All the cops, armies, prisons, and executions in the world cannot impede a market with that kind of profit margin.”
Ron Paul is for the decriminalization of all drugs, which would cut billions of dollars from the budget, increase government revenue from taxed drugs, and therefore decrease the national debt. His policy would result in less people doing the drug and not more, as Portugal’s drug policy has proven in every drug category.
Contention 4: Ron Paul’s health care policy would provide effective and efficient medical care.
Whenever the Government intervenes in health care, quality decreases, and waiting times and prices increase.
Dr. Ron Paul spent his entire career in the medical profession working to uphold this simple principle by ensuring his patients received the best care he could give them, even if they could not afford it. He will fight to put Americans back in control of health care decisions, save us money on medical expenses, and institute reforms that will once again make America’s health care system the world standard.
Repeal ObamaCare and end its unconstitutional mandates, allow purchase of health insurance across state lines, provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses.
Exempt those with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes.
Give a payroll deduction to workers who are the primary caregivers for a family member with a terminal illness and ensure that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation.
Contention 5: Ron Paul’s tax policy would help all Americans (except the IRS and bureaucrats).
The power to tax is the power to destroy, which is why Ron Paul will never support higher taxes. Our national debt is currently over $14 trillion, with the government spending nearly $2 trillion more per year than it collects. The American people should not have to pay for Washington’s reckless and out-of-control appetite for debt. As President, Ron Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income, death, and capital gains taxes. Struggling college students and those working to support their families would be greatly benefited and receive an immediate pay raise by eliminating taxes on tips. The answer to spending and debt is to return to a constitutionally limited government that protects liberty – not a welfare state.
Contention 6: Ron Paul respects individual rights.
He opposes SOPA, NDAA, PIPA, the PATRIOT Act, the REAL ID Act, Domestic Surveillance, Conscription, eminent domain, Affirmative Action. He is strong supporter of the 1st and 2nd amendments. He does not pander to special interest groups, minorities, or majorities; he respects every individuals constitutional rights and will protect them unlike our last two presidents. He has advocated Americans’ constitutional right to engage in controversial things such as drugs, prostitution, and gambling.
Paul rejects the concept of “collective rights” and as such he believes that groups of individuals (be it minorities or corporations), do not have any more rights than individuals. Ron Paul concludes that it is the antithesis of freedom to claim that a group of individuals have more rights than a single individual. There is no gray area in determining whether rights have been violated; you cannot “partially violate” somebody’s liberty. He values individual rights and freedom above all else, as protected under the Constitution. That's why he supports the National Right to Work Act in Congress.
I thank my opponent for outlining Ron Paul's policy. No attempt has been made to show that these policies are superior to those of Obama, which is still my opponent's imperative. Nevertheless in this round I will closely examine the policies con has proposed.
"cut federal spending by $1 trillion the first year"
This is the equivalent of immediately cutting 7% of the American GDP. With his abolition of the savings tax, much of this 7% is unlikely to be re-invested. That means a lower standard of living for Americans as GDP decreases. It also means the immediate layoff of tens of thousands of government staff at a time when unemployment is already a big concern.
"veto any unbalanced budget"
What's wrong with running a surplus? New Zealand ran large surpluses for five years and as a result, we barely took any impact from the recession, where we ran a deficit with all the surpluses we took to counter the sudden loss of investment from elsewhere. That's sensible economics. If the public is allowed to save, why not the government? What is this Keynesian notion that governments must always spend everything they get?
"refuse to raise the debt ceiling"
Again, you need to prove why this is a good thing. While Barack is certainly going to be prudent, to exclude options like this in a financial environment where flexibility is required is silly.
"Federal Reserve System ... 95% reduction of what our dollar can buy"
The problem is not the system, the problem's what they're doing. America needs more regulation to ensure the fed doesn't behave recklessly. That's why Obama spoke in support of Paul's (partial) audit of the federal reserve.
"legalize sound money"
And who would get it? Can the poor afford gold and silver coins? They don't even have jobs!
"end the corporate stranglehold"
Barack has already made a good start at this and will continue to do so.
"allowing offshore drilling"
Thereby facing more oil disasters in the process which costs the government billions of dollars. Plus having the gas companies build lots of expensive drills should immediately drive up gas prices, not down - companies set prices by cost, not simply supply and demand like many economists assume.
"abolish highway motor fuel taxes, increase the mileage reimbursement rates"
...which were put in to encourage the use of public transportation, meaning cleaner air and happier wildlife.
"offer tax credits to individuals and businesses for the use and production of natural gas vehicles."
In other words, he'd take Obama's clean tech investment programme and restrict it to only natural gas. I thought this guy opposed picking winners and losers in the cleantech (or any) market? Apparently not.
"He’d eliminating the income, capital gains, and death taxes"
Firstly, these are all progressive taxes. Expect the rich to become richer and the poor poorer in a country which already has one of the highest rates of income inequality in the world. Secondly, these are all taxes that provide an important source of income to the government. There is no substitute for money in fighting deficits, and taxes is how governments get money. Far better to lower taxes on small businesses to help the poor, increase entrepreneurship and keep American jobs (two thirds of Americans work in small businesses).
"he‘d eliminate the minimum wage"
So Ron Paul would have us all employed, but have most people working for much less than we are now. How is that NOT socialist!? You could say he won't get rid of the rich, but let's face it - socialist countries had rich people too. Besides being socialist, it also further hurts poor families. This is where Barack's American Jobs Act provides a much better solution.
In addition to not ruining America with the aforementioned policies, Obama's plan to drive exports and protect people from Wall Street and Insurance bullies seem far better placed than Paul's to lead America into a brighter economic future. Also, my opponent tacitly avoided mentioning that Paul will abolish almost all science grants. As well as the possible environmental impact of leaving Yellowstone unmonitored (predicted to save ~4 billion lives when it erupts - oh, and did I mention the US geological survey will end, which saved millions during the recent Japanese tsunami?), there's the economic impact of losing incentive for innovation on that part of companies, which then fall behind the rest of the world.
This allowed all people to get health insurance, ending unfair discrimination in the industry. Like I said, before the Affordable Care Act, American health care was quite literally a joke to most poor families.
"allow purchase of health insurance across state lines"
This will only serve to decrease the control states and individuals have other the industry. Expect to see insurers become bigger and more aggressive if Paul is president.
"provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses. Exempt those with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes. Give a payroll deduction..." etc
I have a better idea. Rather than cut all of these taxes (and somehow still expect to pay off the deficit), how about you just don't repeal the Affordable Care Act? That will essentially put millions into the pockets of the government and thousands into the pocket of ordinary Americans.
This is all not to mention Obama's free preventative care policy. I guess Paul will end that great policy too.
My opponent does not address either Obama's awesome policy or Paul's terrible one. I'm waiting for my opponent to bring it up so I can rebut it.
My opponent does not address either Obama's awesome policy or Paul's terrible one. I'm waiting for my opponent to bring it up so I can rebut it.
Obama's clean energy initiative has not only put America much closer to energy independence than Bush was able to do in all of his terms put together - it has also done so in a way that has not cost the environment. Let's see Paul's policy:
"lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power"
Almost all of these are connected to workplace safety and the environmental impact. If you want to see another Three Mile Island, vote for Ron.
"eliminate the ineffective EPA"
Nope. Check his 4-year plan to restore America. The EPA is still there 4 years later. You're probably thinking of Perry. Wait, he won't do it either. Gingrich maybe.
"Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies."
So he'll replace Obama's grants with Paul's tax credits and pretend it's a big difference. Not really.
"Organized crime syndicates" still exist as they can undercut legitimate traders without taxes - the only difference is that you've legalised their income, so they can fund terrorists in South America etc. Gangs become more violent with deregulation to compete with legitimate traders. Imprisonment still exists for illegal trafficking, plus harder drugs (ie meth) are strongly linked to crime. That's why pro-drug legislation failed in Amsterdam, Alaska, Switzerland, andeverywhere else it has been tried.
Obama has worked hard to end discrimination, particularly in the workplace and in health care. My opponent's argument that Paul will protect them unlike Obama is nonsensical unless he proves how Obama did not protect individual rights.
I was also rather hoping to see a few more of Paul's policies appear - my opponent has seriously missed more than half of his most crucial policies. This is disappointing. For instance, I wanted to point out Paul would be unconstitutionally abolishing the office of the census and the patents and trademarks office, and that Paul would be ending birthright citizenship, creating millions of children who are forced to be overstayers no matter where they go in the process.
That's why Ron Paul fails to provide the best policies for American society. The motion stands.
Deconstruction of Opponents Case
“Obama created the National Export Initiative, which will double US exports by 2015”
Notice how this is a centrally planned economic policy, a socialist policy. Obama didn’t repeal laws, regulations, and mandates that makes manufacturing and production easier in the United States, he just created something that removes barriers to trade. He has done nothing to make small business, or even business for that matter easier and more affordable in the United States.
“cut taxes for small businesses 17 times”
Ron Paul would eliminate the income tax and decrease the corporate tax from 39% to 25%. We should tax people when they spend their wealth, not when they create it. The money freed up from income taxes would incentivize savings. Savings enables capital investment which drives production, manufacturing, and economic growth. Obama has done nothing to make the liabilities of being a small business owner easier and less threatening.
“Obama proposes his American Jobs Act to keep Americans working, and increase the pace of job creation”
This is pure fallacy from beginning to end. It’s often called the most persistent economic fallacy. These would be government created artificial jobs, not genuine jobs that result from market forces. Because the government could pay someone to dig a hole and then fill it up again, it becomes clear that it’s not government spending that matters, but production.
“Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is still in its infancy, and needs the protection of a supportive president to nurture their ability to protect ordinary folk from unfair practices”
It is the proper role of government to protect its citizens from becoming defrauded. But this agency arose, because of federal government spending that stimulated artificial economic growth and bubbles. That’s what happens when the Keynesians of Washington send out economic “stimulus.” Whenever you see the word “stimulus” you can basically substitute the word “inflation” because that’s all you’re going to get. So, because of failed Keynesian policy, we have more bureaucracy, thus more public sector jobs that lead to market inefficiency and deadweight loss.
Ron Paul uses sound Austrian economics that stresses budget surpluses, savings, capital investment, manufacturing, and production.
“Thanks to Obama's leadership and his Affordable Care Act, insurance is no longer the domain of an elite few.”
Why wouldn’t government intervention in health care be beneficial? It has never been. Government is here to protect life, liberty, property. That’s it. It isn’t here to redistribute wealth, to take over industries, to tell us what we can buy, to control our personal lives, or to grant us illegitimate rights of someone else’s services. Buying health insurance will soon be mandatory. There is no choice. Whenever government guarantees things in certain industries such as higher education’s student loans or Private Military Companies’ contracts, those industries have carte blanc to raise prices, and lower quality. The same is true for health care, in the only part of medical care that is not touched by this Affordable Care Act, Cosmetic Surgery, prices have been falling, and quality has been rising. However, in all other facets of the industry, prices are rising. Why? Because if everybody buys health insurance, the people charging for the surgeries or other medical procedures have carte blanc to charge whatever they want. A heart surgery in the United States that costs $20,000 costs only $10,000 when the exact same surgery is performed in Singapore: a country with more economic freedom and drastically less government intervention. Whenever socialized medicine is implemented, waiting lines are interminable. Just ask the USSR how well their policies worked; they didn’t.
Ron Paul has spent his career in the health care industry. He knows exactly how to make our system better, inside and out with the free market.
“America wasn't secure [until Obama]” “America needs a president with a proven track record of ending war to end this war too.”
I’m sorry, but this is just pure nonsense.
Obama lied in the face of every American by saying the first thing he would do when elected is get all US forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He didn’t even obey the 18-month time table when set. It’s been 3 years since he was elected, yet we have military interventionism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Basically the entire middle east, and over 200 foreign military bases.
Ron Paul isn’t an empty suit like Barack Obama. He isn’t easily swayed by the Military-Industrial Complex, the Keynesians, the lobbyists, or the powers keeping the status quo so detrimental. He is for ending military interventionism in all foreign countries. He is the most anti-war candidate. He believes the United States should only go to war with a declaration of war, which is what the US constitution says. However, Obama is easily swayed by the PMC lobbyists to continue these wars, because ripping off the government for military contracts is good business for them. Spreading our influence in harmful ways throughout the world decreases our defense, and as a result, blowback (a CIA word) from these conflicts results in events like 9/11.
“He wants to expand and improve veteran's benefits.”
Of course he does. He wants to spend, then he wants to spend, then he wants to overspend and spend some more. A quote by Edmund Burke in 1754 explains why:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
“Barack Obama doubled financial aid investment to help millions of kids from poor and middle class families attend university.”
The result of this has been the continual increase of college tuition, and an increase in the national debt. Politicians want to overspend to get votes from constituents, and whoever is in office wants to overspend to gain as many votes for reelection as possible. Not overspending in the first place removes the corrections of deep recessions and depressions. Because of Barack Obama’s reckless overspending, the next market correction will be far, far worse.
“There can be little doubt that all of these policies and priorities are socially beneficial.”
If you consider the crippling depression of the economy, military intervention’s terrorist blowback, and loss of personal liberties to be beneficial, then yes you could assume that. But, for any sane and rational person, these policies are the foundation of what is overwhelmingly contributing to the downfall of America.
Request for security/foreign policy: while foreign policy is not in the resolution, Ron Paul's foreign policy is widely considered to be the best in the 2012 race. It stresses non-interventionism which eliminates the CIA's blowback principle [see 9/11]. He is the only candidate that would cut military spending (more money for productive use). He has demonstrated how the current callous foreign policy is bankrupting the country and harming our national security.
Education: Ron Paul opposes government intervention in education, and for good reasons. Federal government intervention in public schools (Department of Education founded 1979) has led to a continuous drop in American education standards, increase in failing schools (currently 82%), and the encouragement of mediocrity [Milton Chen]. In higher education the government guarantees student loans which gives colleges carte blanc to raise tuition rates while academic output declines. In the 1950's college could be payed for with a part-time job, now because of gov't it's impossible.
I will uphold my case in the next round as my opponent will do the same.
Con didn't continue arguing individual rights, drugs, or energy policies, and he didn't address my two examples of unconstitutional and immoral Ron Paul policies from my last paragraph. Indeed, my opponent has actually rebutted none of my round three case as we head into the final round. It seems con still has some work to do.
Removing barriers to trade is socialist
That's practically what my opponent said about Obama's National Export Initiative. Socialist countries have more barriers to trade than anywhere else in the world.
Cutting taxes = doing nothing to make small business ... more affordable in the United States.
Cutting taxes makes business cheaper as they have more income.
Ron Paul would eliminate the income tax and decrease the corporate tax from 39% to 25%.
...digging much deeper into the deficit in the process. He would not create a tax on spending. Besides this, both are examples of progressive taxes. Putting start-ups on a flat tax level with big business makes it harder for them to compete, reducing entrepreneurship. Furthermore, it's not as though capital investment isn’t happening under the status quo - Paul would merely be shifting the burden of responsibility for spending from himself on to others.
Obama has done nothing to make the liabilities of being a small business owner easier and less threatening.
He has driven down the cost of getting small business loans and cut their taxes to make repayment easier. That's not exactly nothing.
"[American Jobs Act jobs] would be government created artificial jobs, not genuine jobs"
It's clear my opponent hasn't actually read the policy. The American Jobs Act incentivises real companies, affected by real market forces, to create real jobs for real people. Indeed most of these jobs come from a series of sensible tax cuts in the policy. The plan costs the government nothing with Obama's deficit reduction plan.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "arose, because of federal government spending"
The CFPB arose to regulate the finance industry. A deregulated finance industry means that the sort of dangerous financial practices that these companies were engaging in during and before the recession will return. Whether helped by the government or not, these kinds of dodgy and economically destructive practices can't be good news for America.
Public sector jobs lead to market inefficiency
That would presume that all public sector jobs interfere with the market. Is there a market for education for kids who can't afford it, for example? No, of course not. Markets do not provide stuff like that, people do. That's why the government helps people provide them.
Ron Paul uses sound Austrian economics that stresses budget surpluses, savings, capital investment, manufacturing, and production.
Ron Paul's plan is to veto budget surpluses, as my opponent has admitted. It is to increase the burden on businesses, and reduce entrepreneurship. It is to end most federal capital investment and hope that somebody else does the federal government's job. It is to repeal Obama's plans for massively increased production. Does that sound like sound Austrian economics to you?
"Buying health insurance will soon be mandatory. There is no choice."
Better that everyone has access to healthcare than that it remains the exclusive domain of the very rich and powerful. Why would somebody choose not to be healthy when they are sick?
"Whenever government guarantees things in certain industries ... those industries have carte blanc to raise prices, and lower quality."
Which is why the plan forces insurance companies to charge everybody affordable prices and not compromise on quality. Besides, in New Zealand we have a mandatory accident compensation system. That might sound socialist and evil, because we have no choice. However, New Zealand's Accident Compensation Corporation is among the most efficient insurance schemes in the world. For just a few cents per day we all have full cover with no loopholes. The ACC is free to raise their prices and lower their quality, but they don't. Government guarantee does not mean everybody abuses the system.
"Whenever socialized medicine is implemented, waiting lines are interminable"
Lines have reduced significantly, so clearly this plan must not be "socialised medicine." In any event, ever notice how life expectancy in Russia fell sharply just after the USSR broke down? Don't get me wrong - the USSR was a bad place to live - but the one thing they did have was healthcare. The “American way” of denying the poor access to medicine is both immoral and unjust.
"It’s been 3 years since he was elected, yet we have military interventionism in Iraq, Afghanistan..."
The Iraq war has ended. The war on the Taliban is on schedule to end shortly. The entire middle east may hate each other, but they are not currently at war. If my opponent had actually gone over any of the military bases I would have been happy to show a good reason for their existence.
"He believes the United States should only go to war with a declaration of war"
So does Barack, but that doesn't mean you randomly cease fighting people who are trying to kill you while you are in a war.
"Obama is easily swayed by the PMC lobbyists to continue these wars"
Is that why he has already ended the Iraq war and has almost ended a second? Few presidents have ended two foreign wars responsibly, which Obama hopes to do. Obama's policy is superior because it works. It did for Iraq. It will for the Taliban.
“He wants to expand and improve veteran's benefits... He wants to spend, then he wants to spend, then he wants to overspend and spend some more.”
It isn't overspending. With Obama's prudently calculated budget, the deficit still decreases and yet veteran's benefit's increase. How does he pay for it? By not cutting more than 50% of government revenue.
"It stresses non-interventionism which eliminates the CIA's blowback principle"
Having a military base abroad is not intervention. It's being ready for intervention. Unless Barack actually invades somewhere, there will be no intervention. Thus, Paul's policy is not superior in this way.
"He is the only candidate that would cut military spending (more money for productive use)."
If military spending is not productive, why even spend anything on the military? Because military spending IS doing something productive.
"Barack Obama... help[ed] millions of kids from poor and middle class families attend university...The result of this has been [inflation], and an increase in the national debt."
National debt has not increased significantly as a result of this policy. Inflation does occur, but in the long-run, these students will be what drives American growth and innovation. This is an investment - just because the returns have not been fully realised yet does not mean it's a bad investment.
"Federal government intervention in public schools has led to a drop in American education standards" etc
Obama has been the first president to do something about all of the above with his reform of No Child Left Behind and his Race to the Top program. With these changes, American schools are starting to change for the better. Just because there is still work to be done reforming the system doesn't mean you destroy it ... it means you fix it!
" student loans which gives colleges carte blanc to raise tuition rates while academic output declines."
Not true with academic output - researchers are motivated not by profit but by a desire to learn new stuff. Student loans ensure universal affordability, unlike part time work. The reality is there aren't even enough jobs for adults now, let alone students. Even so the proportion of Americans going to college is higher now than ever, and that's great.
In summary, my opponent has failed to overcome Obama’s policies, defend Paul’s policies, or even respond to most of my arguments. I thank my opponent for a fun and challenging debate, and urge a pro vote.
Wallstreetatheist forfeited this round.