The Instigator
Republican95
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ilovgoogle
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

So far, the Obama presidency has NOT been beneficial to the United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
ilovgoogle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,702 times Debate No: 9098
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Republican95

Pro

I affirm the resolution.

==Definitions==

Beneficial-conferring benefit; advantageous
(www.dictionary.com)

The Obama Presidency-anything that can be attributed to President Obama that occurred after January 20, 2009.

==Arguments==

(a) Since Obama took office on January 20, 2009 the national debt has increased $954,324,742,369. That is almost one trillion dollars added to our debt in a six month period. If the national debt keeps on climbing at this rate by January 2013 (the end of Obama's first term) the national debt would have increased $33,083,257,735,458. That is 33 trillion dollars for the mathematically impaired. This can be attributed to Barack Obama.
(http://www.theobamadebt.com...)

(b) The unemployment rate has risen during Obama's first six months in office from 8.7% to 9.7 percent. That is a one percent increase in six months. If this pattern continues than by January 2013 we can expect the unemployment rate to be around 17.7%; the highest since the Great Depression.
(http://www.google.com...)

(c) Obama has heated up race relations. In a news conference President Obama sated that the Cambridge Police Department acted STUPIDLY when they arrested Professor Gates for disorderly conduct. He did not have all of the facts, he admitted that himself in the video. He has reinforced negative stereotypes about the relationship between law enforcement and African Americans. Obama has wound back the clock when it comes to race relations.
()

I will reinforce my points when they are attacked.

I thank whoever accepts this debate.
ilovgoogle

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for starting what should be an eye opening experience.

I agree with opponent definitions, but reserve the right to present new ones should the opportunity arrive.

My opponents arguments:
a) Since Obama took office on January 20, 2009 the national debt has increased $954,324,742,369. That is almost one trillion dollars added to our debt in a six month period. If the national debt keeps on climbing at this rate by January 2013 (the end of Obama's first term) the national debt would have increased $33,083,257,735,458. That is 33 trillion dollars for the mathematically impaired. This can be attributed to Barack Obama.

My opponent has made a claim saying that the national debt is Obamas fault. First of all some of this increase is artificial. The Bush administration had used "accounting gimmicks" to make the debt appear less then is actually was. http://blog.buzzflash.com... Obama's administration advocates transparency so the now, money was previously still being spent unreported shows on the national debt. Second let's talk about two very big expenses that have occurred under Obama. The Bailout and the Stimulus. The Bailout cost $700 billion and the Stimulus bill $800 billion. Together they cost 1.5 trillion. Let's consider the debt has increased by a sum of around 1 trillion. Without these bills Obama would actually be in the green by 500 billion. The bailout prevented what could have been a been disastrous depression for all of America, cleary it was beneficial compared to what could have been. We could argue the merits naively, but I think it's best to go with the experts; economists. They have agreed while not a great thing the bailout was necessary to prevent something much worse. http://cbs5.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Next up is the stimulus bill. In a downturn, employment dwindles which means people have less money to spend on things. This means company's have less income; they have to make cuts to their employment. So begins the cycle. While this maybe an oversimplification the fact still remains that you need to do something to stop the cycle. That something is the stimulus bill. History has taught us the in a downturn the government has to take action or risk becoming The Great Depression that Hoover helped accelerate by doing nothing. Once again we must look at how bad it could have been if nothing had been done, as with the bailout. It also doesn't hurt that most economists once again agree it was necessary.
While the debt has increased, the alternative is much worse, in this way Obama has been beneficial to the United States by preventing something much worse. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu...
http://www.boston.com... http://www.ft.com...

(b) The unemployment rate has risen during Obama's first six months in office from 8.7% to 9.7 percent. That is a one percent increase in six months. If this pattern continues than by January 2013 we can expect the unemployment rate to be around 17.7%; the highest since the Great Depression.

This is like saying FDR was responsible was The Great Depression. Obama inherited 2 wars, a huge national debt and a recession. Are these all Obama's fault too? The whole point the bailout and the stimulus is to fight these problems he inherited from Bush. And to say "the pattern continues" is a pretty outlandish claim. What proof do you have that it will continue? I have showed that Obama is trying to fight unemployment which he is not responsible for.

(c) Obama has heated up race relations. In a news conference President Obama sated that the Cambridge Police Department acted STUPIDLY when they arrested Professor Gates for disorderly conduct. He did not have all of the facts, he admitted that himself in the video. He has reinforced negative stereotypes about the relationship between law enforcement and African Americans. Obama has wound back the clock when it comes to race relations.

How did Obama reinforce negative stereotypes? As we all know he tried to sort out the problem with his "beer summit" which is better then the mounting tensions this media firestorm has created between Africans-Americans and Whites over the issue. Regardless of your personal feelings, if anything, being able to talk about race in issues like this moves foreword the racial challenges this country has. Debate and discussion are good as we all know.

Now that I've addressed my opponents points I will move onto some ways Obama HAS been beneficial to the US.

(A) Let's first consider the fact that he is the first African-American president to be elected. This is a momumuntail moment for all of America. If signifies that we have broken free of a lot some the race issues that have plagued us in time past.
(B) He has restored faith in America abroad. People around the world celebrated his election and welcomed him when he wanted to engage in diplomatic talks. Let's compare that to Bush who most of the world disliked. Heck, Obama has even got Cuba to open up. The world more talkative and people admire America again. Now tell me hat Obama hasn't helped the American image abroad. http://www.csmonitor.com...
(C) Obama has also advocated transparency in which he received A+ from the Brennan Center for justice. http://www.brennancenter.org...
(D) Obama has also set a timetable for leaving the Iraq war. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
(E) Obama has also set forth a plan for alternative energy and cut carbon admissions. http://www.reuters.com...

Seeing as I have no more room I will expand upon my po
Debate Round No. 1
Republican95

Pro

I will be unable to post a full response this round.

I will post my attacks and my conclusion in the next round.

I yield back to my opponent.
ilovgoogle

Con

ilovgoogle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Republican95

Pro

I will at this time address my opponent's points.

My Opponent: "My opponent has made a claim saying that the national debt is Obamas fault. First of all some of this increase is artificial. The Bush administration had used "accounting gimmicks" to make the debt appear less then is actually was. http://blog.buzzflash.com...... Obama's administration advocates transparency so the now, money was previously still being spent unreported shows on the national debt."

The Bush presidency is irrelevant. What Bush did does not effect what Obama can do. My opponent makes it seem like Obama is a man of the people advocating for 100% transparent government, he is not. Before the passage of the Economic Stimulus plan in February, Obama said that the American people would be able to get on the White House wesbsite and track every single cent. If you visit www.whitehouse.gov you will find this to be not true.

My Opponent: "Second let's talk about two very big expenses that have occurred under Obama. The Bailout and the Stimulus. The Bailout cost $700 billion and the Stimulus bill $800 billion."

The Bailouts:

1) By giving these failing corporations more money we are delaying the inevitable. These corporations needed bailout money because they were not profitable. When this recession ends these bailed-out corporations will be at a disadvantage and will continue to lag. Why? Because once they actually start making money they have to start paying back debts they owe to the government. Because of this they will fail and jobs will be lost.

2) What have corporations done with the bailout money? They have spent it on bonuses and corporate getaways. This is a perfect example of why to not give big business taxpayer money. Here are a few examples:

A) AIG sending executives on a quail hunting trip.
B) Banks using bail-out money to buy other banks

Since when should taxpayers have to pay to send executives on hunting trips?

The Stimulus:

This is how the stimulus worked. A bill was introduced into Congress, congressmen and women from all over the country were allowed to put provisions the bill that would stimulate economies in their districts. Like the construction of a new school, or an education program, or something else. Not a bad idea, except there was two problems.

1) It was way too expensive, it shouldn't have been a spending free for all, the President should have set a spending limit of between 300 and 500 billion dollars.
2) There was no oversight. This bill was 647 pages long. The Congressional Budget and Oversight Office should have investigated allegations of fraud before the bill was even passed. However, due to the vagueness of the bill such provisions, like one provision only saying "27 Million in Massachusetts for Bridge Construction", you have no reason to suspect fraud. When you 647 pages of this, fraud and bad politics are going to get in the way. So, whose shoulders does it fall on? Well, Obama was the one who introduced the bill, so...the burden to see that the bill wasn't taken advantage of fell on the administration.
http://www.rules.house.gov...
3) Why Spend that much money. Tax cuts would be more proficient...

My Opponent's points I will not attack

My Opponent: "(A) Let's first consider the fact that he is the first African-American president to be elected. This is a momumuntail moment for all of America. If signifies that we have broken free of a lot some the race issues that have plagued us in time past."

Ta-da!!! Obama is great for America because he is black? America hasn't been a racist country since the 1960s, Obama wasn't elected because he was black, but rather because he was a SENSIBLE candidate. There are as many racists now after the election than there were before the election, maybe more.

My Opponent: "He has restored faith in America abroad. People around the world celebrated his election and welcomed him when he wanted to engage in diplomatic talks. Let's compare that to Bush who most of the world disliked. Heck, Obama has even got Cuba to open up. The world more talkative and people admire America again. Now tell me hat Obama hasn't helped the American image abroad."

This begs the question: why is Obama liked so much by the world community? Because he is believed to be weak. I'd much rather have a president who stuck up for my country than one who "Was popular amongst world leaders". He has in no way taken tough-enough stands against Iran, North Korea, or Russia.

My Opponent: "Obama has also advocated transparency in which he received A+ from the Brennan Center for justice."

Then why isn't the economic stimulus bill on the White House Website as he promised? The Brennan Center for Justice is affiliated with New York University School of Law, its not in the know about what goes on in Washington. If the Office of Congressional Budget and oversight gives him an A you might what to re-post that argument.

My Opponent: "Obama has also set a timetable for leaving the Iraq war."
1) First my opponent has stated no reason for why we should leave the Iraq War, he needs to provide one.
2) What is a timetable. A plan. A timetable is a plan. He may not carry out these plans. Just like that plan of putting the spending on the white house website...good plans don't amount to much unless followed by decisive action.

My Opponent: "Obama has also set forth a plan for alternative energy and cut carbon admissions."
Once again a plan.

I rest my case.
ilovgoogle

Con

This debate has essentially lasted 2 rounds. 2 rounds, to debate an entire administration and everything in it. 2 wars, the stimulus, the bailout, foreign policy, pollution, racism, and everything else that come with a President in 6,000 words or less. My opponent did not respond to my first round argument till the last round, and as a general rule of thumb I personally feel it's not right to take advantage of that. Take that for what you will. Now on to the debate!

"The Bush presidency is irrelevant. What Bush did does not effect what Obama can do. My opponent makes it seem like Obama is a man of the people advocating for 100% transparent government, he is not. Before the passage of the Economic Stimulus plan in February, Obama said that the American people would be able to get on the White House website and track every single cent. If you visit "" you will find this to be not true."

You might of missed something, but he followed through with this and you can access it at http://www.recovery.gov.... Your point is in dead water. Obama has improved transparency in the government meaning a better and more honest government.
"By giving these failing corporations more money we are delaying the inevitable. These corporations needed bailout money because they were not profitable. When this recession ends these bailed-out corporations will be at a disadvantage and will continue to lag. Why? Because once they actually start making money they have to start paying back debts they owe to the government. Because of this they will fail and jobs will be lost."

It's not so much they were not profitable as they made some bad investments. You even go on to say that they'll start making money again and contradict your own argument. These financial institutions were too big to fail. If they fail so does the rest of the American economy. While it shouldn't have happened in the first place, this is not something you can say is Obama's fault, he had to act knowing that without the bailout the entire world economy could crumble. As I have mentioned before the alternative is much worse. You also failed to respond to my evidence citing strong support for the bailout by economists. We can debate the bailout at a very amateur level, but somehow I am more willing to trust economists rather then a 14 year old boy from Mississippi.

"What have corporations done with the bailout money? They have spent it on bonuses and corporate getaways. This is a perfect example of why to not give big business taxpayer money. Here are a few examples:
A) AIG sending executives on a quail hunting trip.
B) Banks using bail-out money to buy other banks"

You fail to cite any evidence supporting these claims.

"This is how the stimulus worked. A bill was introduced into Congress, congressmen and women from all over the country were allowed to put provisions the bill that would stimulate economies in their districts. Like the construction of a new school, or an education program, or something else. Not a bad idea, except there was two problems.
1) It was way too expensive, it shouldn't have been a spending free for all, the President should have set a spending limit of between 300 and 500 billion dollars."
"3) Why Spend that much money. Tax cuts would be more proficient.."
A spending limit of 300 and 500 billion dollars? Why would this be beneficial? Once again you fail to support your claim with evidence; as Pro you do have the burden of proof.

"America hasn't been a racist country since the 1960s, Obama wasn't elected because he was black, but rather because he was a SENSIBLE candidate. There are as many racists now after the election than there were before the election, maybe more."
Obama is great because he represents the progress we have made in race relations in this country. To say racism hasn't existed since the 1960's is a well misinformed comment. Drawing just from recent news, I urge to reconsider your statement. Black campers were discriminated at a pool in which members of the pool said "What are all these black kids doing here?" and then removed their kids from the pool. Even after the issue blew-up they continued to defend their action admitting point-blank racism "There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion . . . and the atmosphere of the club." One mother even pulled her kid out of the water over fear that the black child would hurt her white kid. http://tinyurl.com... While we are not done dealing with race in this country Obama clearly marks a step forward. A black president would not have been elected 30, even 20 years ago.

"he is believed to be weak. I'd much rather have a president who stuck up for my country than one who "Was popular amongst world leaders". He has in no way taken tough-enough stands against Iran, North Korea, or Russia."
He's weak? Say's who? To say he hasn't taken tough stands is a flat-out lie. He commended the violence in Iran by saying he was "'appalled and outraged' by protesters' deaths" he clearly said human right violations were taking place. http://tinyurl.com...

"1) First my opponent has stated no reason for why we should leave the Iraq War, he needs to provide one.
2) What is a timetable. A plan. A timetable is a plan. He may not carry out these plans. Just like that plan of putting the spending on the white house website..good plans don't amount to much unless followed by decisive action."

I could write a whole book on why we need to leave the Iraq War. I will point out some highlights and provide a link to more info 1. The human cost of war is unacceptable 2. The U.S. occupation is a catalyst for violence. 3. Iraqis want the United States to leave now. Point 2 is void. http://tinyurl.com...
My opponent has dropped the national debt point and not responded to my first round ?'s surrounding employment. Obama hasn't even been in the WH a year and has already done so much; he is a hard worker.
Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ilovgoogle 8 years ago
ilovgoogle
Wow, the round and character limit really killed my argument. I had to cut half my points and could not adequately respond. Republican95 I suggest revising this in the future.
Posted by PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
Too utterly ridiculous to even consider taking up. The economic plummet momentum as well as record national deficits were inherited from Dubya. Obama long told, even before he took office, that it would take some time to turn the economy around and things would continue to get worse before he could fix the George Bushonomics.

The rate of plummet has sharply reduced, it just hasn't yet rebounded. The jihad waged by the right wingers of the country who slammed through de-regulations upon the poorest of Americans will take a long time to repair.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ilovgoogle 8 years ago
ilovgoogle
Republican95ilovgoogleTied
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