The AMERO - does this currency pose a threat to our economy?
Debate Rounds (3)
This currency will change the societal direction and policies as we know it! Creating harmful conditions to increase and develop other potential threats which would affect the citizens of the countries involved in this NAU.
>I'll go over my opponent's arguments before moving on to my own.
"The Amero is a currency introduced by the formation of the North American Union."
"[The Amero] is not spoken of publicly as much as it should be."
Barring the lack of definition in "should be," I agree that the Amero is sparsely discussed.
"This currency being in operation would pose problems for the countries operating under the North American Union."
I completely disagree. My opponent cites no data and does not warrant this conjecture. He makes no effort at all to explain this.
"The introduction of the Amero is not healthy for our economy, especially with its current condition."
I will take "our" to refer to the US. There is not conceivable manner in which my opponent is correct. Again, no warrant, no justification. Turn this - it helps the US economy because:
1. This strengthens NAFTA because there is one currency used in all of the involved countries. US is a part of NAFTA, this transitively helps the US.
2. The US doesn't waste anything converting currency, this actually will get rid of the problems with the weakness of the American dollar.
"This currency will change the societal direction and policies as we know it!"
Absolutely! But our societal direction and policies right now are terrible!
"Creating harmful conditions to increase and develop other potential threats which would affect the citizens of the countries involved in this NAU."
Again, no reference to what harmful conditions ever are. This is again not explained.
>On to my arguments.
>I basically have one argument: the Amero is helpful. Here are my reasons why:
1. Strength of the Dollar
The dollar has been rather week lately (http://www.x-rates.com...). Making a new currency would sort of reboot the US currency, limiting inflation and strengthing the US economy.
2. The Amero Saves Money
According to "No Small Change: The Awkward Economics and Politics of North American Monetary Integration" by W.B.P. Robson and D.E.W. Laidler, the Amero would actually save $3 billion in currency transactions in addition to making overall transactions between countries in the Americas easier.
>So for these reasons you can vote CON. Good luck to my opponent.
For the many of you which are probably not convinced by my opponents argument and have done some research on the topic of the Amero being introduced to the economy in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico...and perhaps recognize that this was not mentioned to the public before its creation, I present my confirmation to your PRO perspective and vote.
With the formation of the North American Union, there is a threat that this exposes on the part of the leaders of the American government. I am not making mention of the activities of the Canadian and Mexican governments role in the formation of this act being passed within those countries. Due to a large part of our audience being from the U.S. I will focus on the aspects of American government so the audience can relate to the documented information I shall present.
The threat that the American government posed is TYRANNY:
- oppressive and unjust government; despotism
- very cruel and unjust use of power or authority
- a tyrannical act
On October 17, 2006, there were two acts of tyranny committed. The first was a public signing of the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' which suspended habeas corpus allowing the president to declare you an 'enemy combatant' and end your rights to seek legal or judicial relief from unlawful imprisonment. The second act of tyranny took place in a private Oval Office ceremony, in which the president signed into law the 'John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007' which essentially eliminates the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act and re-wrote the Insurrection Act. The NDAA will allow the president to declare a 'public emergency' and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder'!
Expressing the pessimist's view was law professor Jonathan Turley who wrote: "The Congress just gave the president despotic powers and you could hear a yawn across the country [. . . ] People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're going to change back anytime soon." Turley also said that: "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."
The Center for Constitutional Rights commented that the: "Congress is now rubber-stamping a bill that was written by the President which gives the President expansive power to detain without judicial oversight. If the Military Commissions Act is passed, it will grant the President the privilege of kings, allowing him to imprison any critics as alleged ‘enemy combatants,' never to see the inside of a court room or to have the chance to challenge their detention or their treatment. What would we say if another country passed a law making it legal to snatch U.S. citizens and detain them indefinitely?"
In the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has continued to make widespread and unnecessary changes in laws and administrative powers that undermine the most basic Constitutional principles and protected rights of citizens in a democracy [ours is a Constitutional Republic]. Recently, both President Bush and Senator Mark Warner (VA) have renewed calls to undermine or reverse the Posse Comitatus Act of 1867 [sic - i.e.,1878], which re-established the Constitutional principle and practice of separating military and police functions in a democracy [ours is a Constitutional Republic].
With the formation of the NAU, there has been acts to follow which have been unconstitutional and threatening to the sovereignty of the U.S. and its citizens 'preserved' rights and freedoms. The addition of the Amero is with prior acts which have helped to steer our conditions towards the option of a new currency as a way of escape. But when it incorporates other influences, such as what was stated above, and other legal changes which are not in the best interests of the country and its citizens, does that option for escape still seem feasible?
When acts are being passed which conflict with the constitution, it is not a situation to take lightly. The Amero's incorporation into the economy also introduces other factors which influence our constitution in an unlawful way, threatening the rights and freedoms of the citizens in the U.S. The American economy will no longer exist and the borders giving it security and sovereignty will be eliminated! The interests which have allowed the U.S. to make decisions within a scope of reason which prevents threatening concerns to the idea of democracy, will be compromised with the interests of others which have views from different conditions and intent to cater to their survival in critical times. For example, when an economy is struggling for survival!
The founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer (1743-1812), told the secret of controlling the government of a nation over 200 years ago. He said, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws."
Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system. Since his influence on the American economy, there has been an increase of steady national debt in the country which still haunts us to this day!
Nobody forfeited this round.
Nobody forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.