The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

The Economy is not Obama's Fault

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,993 times Debate No: 17449
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




In today's complex world, Jobs are made by innovation. With the cheap labor from China and the draw down in peoples pay checks it is not Obama's Fault for our anemic economy. If any one is to Blame it is the American's that choose to live beyond their means and carry far too much Debt.
With the Republicans blocking every thing in sight that may benefit the poor or the middle class , the cutting will Increase unemployment not bring it down.
Hopefully a Rational Debate can convince many of the Lies of the right.

Washington has never created Jobs, but through proper governance as well a legislation the process of job Creation is made more efficient.

The case against Obama:

The stimulus has not worked."

To this I simply say prove it. companies can be too big to fail. Saving the banks, and he auto industry was money well spent. If the Republicans has their way, the only programs that may help the poor will only be tied to major companies. If the publicans had their way, unions of any size would be quickly eliminated.

Sadly the end Game of the Republicans is block any thing that may turn this econo around. A defeat Obama at the cost of Jobs.


I will accept the challenge for a debate on this topic. However, it seems PRO has added various subtopics to this debate, mainly the case against republicans and the contrast between the so called right and left. I will try to address them all. I take it PRO is arguing the ideas on the table which are best for the economy. With the statement:

"Washington has never created Jobs, but through proper governance as well a legislation the process of job Creation is made more efficient."


"companies can be too big to fail. Saving the banks, and [t]he auto industry was money well spent."

PRO is for governmental intervention specifically those of the current administration. I will be against this form of governmental intervention as well as many of those ideas PRO presented against the "right" in the current struggle of budget talks.

Allow a free market and the economy will prosper, less government intervention in the economy the better regardless of administration. The current administration has not accomplished nor championed any legislation which has shown any improvement in the economy. In fact, deficit spending increased as well as the unemployment rate. The stimulus plan failed. Jobs that were promised time and time again did not appear. The 787 billion dollar package was not money well spent, more like deficit money badly spent. Claims that the Bush Era is mainly to blame are simply not true. While I do not completely support Former President Bush's economic policies look at the numbers, including his Bush's budget he passed for the first year of Obama's presidency:


The economy itself relies largely on confidence. Confidence of the market, confidence in government stability, confidence in credit rating, confidence in banking institutions and wall street. Due to the heavy intervention of the government in today's economy, coupled with deficit spending and clueless nature of the current administration as a proper way ahead, the confidence in the market clearly reflects the results.

The present state of the economy is completely subject to policies and legislation supported by the current administration. Should the economy, at the present time, be booming and growing so eagerly would many supporters credit the administration. This is clearly shown by the claims of the left and current administration with the minor improvements in the economy, while miniscule and irrelevant on a grand scale. Throughout history the failure or success of an administration in respect to the state of the economy, deficit and unemployment etc, has always came about through its achievements or failures during its term(s) in office.

The bi partisan debate over the deficit is a major key in the future of America's economy. The Obama administration and the "left" continue to stress the importance of raising the debt ceiling and taxes, while the "right" and others want to reign in the debt, cut spending and not allow an increase in taxes.


PRO states we are to blame! The American worker, us who pay taxes, us who spend the money to stimulate the economy, us who confide in the financial institutions! All the while these same institutions are in collusion with the government and backed by the Federal Reserve to make wise decisions with our deposits.

To the claim Republicans are blocking anything in sight that may benefit the poor or middle class resulting in higher unemployment.

Let me first state this: Many get lost in the left and right of politics and policies, in regards to end states and intentions. The truth is neither side advocates ignoring the poor or eliminating the middle class etc. Instead both sides wish the same outcomes. A Booming economy, low poverty line, high standard of living, low unemployment, quality education and a balanced budget. The question is then HOW to get there? In my opinion government is almost never the answer.

What benefits the poor? Is it government welfare? Is it public education? Is it social security? Is it higher taxes for Americans and small business owners? Is it health care reform? History shows the best way to fight poverty is not through government programs or spending but through economic growth.

The only way for an economy to grow effectively and expediently is through freedom in the markets, minimal government intervention and reduced regulation and taxes. The Obama administration clearly is on a path to a centralization of government as well as keeping government in the marketplace.
Debate Round No. 1


The Global Economy:

The days of free markets without government intervention are over. The," world is flat", in which every thing is connected.
It is my opinion that politics is the greatest driver of good Economies. Every thing comes down to good politics. With good governance economies are made stronger.
The days of just letting corporations do what ever are over. The Yachts that a risen during a rising tide are only owned by the super wealthy. If we assume that this down turn is hard on every one is a myth. The hardest hit are those with less. Many perhaps hundreds o thousands are taking anything at a pay cut just to have work. If business was the sole cure without governance then why are they not investing when profits are at all times high.

Con believes that a government that does less some how the economy gets more. History has proven this to be not the case. During the times of the robber industrialists every thing we could have learned about big business with small government , we learned the hard way. child labor, people working at slave wages, weak or no unions, and many other tragedies imposed n the society at large. The end result was the rich,(industrialist), got rich on the backs of the poor.

In days times there are still more hard work to do and I do not argue that those om take the most risks should get most of the rewards. But at the same time it is extremely nihilistic to conclude that the rich is looking out for the good will of their employees.No quite the opposite, the only reason the rich cares about hiring is the bottom line. How can this employee put more money into the pocket of the industrialist through increased profits.


It all comes down to politics. Be it good or bad;politics, it is impossible to operate in our complex world with out it. If China changes its currency rate making it cheaper to buy things at wal-mart we in turn must also must do something.
Intervention is constantly needed in today's world. It is a fool that uses old data or facts when it is no longer relevant.
In today's flat economic world uncharted paths are before Us.

With Limited budgets as well as new ways of making money we all must change our politics as well as mode of thinking to include mind sets. In the past Billions of dollars circulated around. Today trillions of dollars is the Norm. I disagree with con that government, is not needed. Government is politics as well as governance. It takes professional politicians to navigate thorny slopes.

Most of Americans do not even care about politics. Hal still believes in outdated strategy of trickle own politics. Along with voter Apathy, the political leaders we choose to put in the seats of power will either get us out of trouble or lead us deeper into it. It is high time to get with the current times and focus upon details, instead of the Fox Insanity.

Good Stewardship is also about it.

Perhaps with Critical thinking, Common sense, and voting e can make this country the strongest in the world again. Obama is the Leader that can get it down considering the politicians from the Right. Signing a Pledge to run the country is not the best way forward.Are we back in elementary school? I think not. We need Adult Leader's, Adult Governance, and most important Adults voting because apathy is worse now than ever. We Americans must put childish things aside and focus upon the current state of things, vice the rhetoric.


PRO states that my arguments are old or outdated. I must confess maybe PRO misunderstood my last argument. I do not advocate no government intervention as I am a realist and realize this is impossible in today's society. What I advocate is minimal government intervention as possible. If my opponent claims trickledown economics is not true let me present this scenario:

There is a big, bad corporation that is greedy and wants nothing more than the bottom line and to produce more revenue and profits. Let's say this company's product is pizza and named Porky's Pizza, oh how far they have come from a small mom and pop shop. They have come from a small pizza parlor to expand and grow into a large worldwide corporation, providing jobs and a good product along the way. Now the CEO, the board, presidents of departments, what have you, are accustomed to large salaries after all business is booming. The shareholders all expect a return and at least steady growth on their investment and they are receiving good results, business is booming. The employees all serve their purpose they are neither mistreated nor neglected and are paid generous salaries, again business is good. They are a successful business.

They have arrived here not by bad business, but by good business and quality pizza pies. Porky's is highly competitive in the price arena compared to others for their pizza pies considering quality and quantity. It is hard for competitors to keep up as Porky's is established and customers are accustomed to the quality they know and are paying for. Customers are very pleased with the choice they have, after all Porky's Pizza arrived here because it provided quality pies and great customer service at a low competitive price.

Now as a big, bad corporation Porky's Pizza has provided to charity, paid their fair share of taxes they may have exploited some loopholes for business, but hey who hasn't. Still Porky's has reinvested into their company all along because that's what they wanted the bottom line, money, greed and the drive to expand and become larger than life, success. All that hard work from where they first started seems like a lifetime but they here now.
Now a recession has plagued the country. Customers aren't buying pizza pies so much anymore and numbers are starting to fall. Porky's compensates for this by reducing budgets by a small percentage and also slowing down their reinvestment side of business a bit. After all if business is slow there is no reason to build and open new locations. So they mirror the economy, they even lower the price to their pies a bit more to attract more customers and revenue. All the while the employees stay content because due to these decisions and strategies they are able to keep their jobs as well as the salaries they are accustomed to.

The recession began due to the monetary and fiscal policies of the government. The Federal Reserve has continued to print money and inflate the economy. The strategies of the government have been to continue, even increase, subsidies and deficit spending hoping the false stimulation in the economy will bring it back to normal levels. This has led to high inflation and high interest rates that the people cannot afford. Businesses go under, runs on banks begin. The so called good politics have actually led to politicians full of self interest and the desire to be re elected. Their decisions reflect this. Instead of making responsible choices that could reign in on the spending in government, fearful of losing their constituents and base, politicians including the administration refuse to cut back. Instead they propose the wealthy pay their fair share. They attack the wealthy and corporations whom are still making money because of their adaptation to the changing economy. Many debates take place throughout the country, some claiming that raising taxes is counterproductive others state it is the only way to share sacrifice. However, they do not understand the taxes are for the government's "revenue" in order to continue to keep their budget manageable. The government's policies, strategies and spending have to be paid for somehow. Now it is forced. Taxes are raised during the recession. The pockets of the wealthy are picked to put back into the pockets that are poorer.

Back to Porky's Pizza, taxes have been raised. The plan and strategies that Porky's had implemented to combat lower revenues need to be altered. The CEO, the board, presidents of departments and shareholders are affected. Will this affect their way of life and salaries? Of course not they are accustomed to what they are compensated and rightly so. They have worked their way to the top and have made wise decisions and good business practices to bring this company to where it is now, they are greedy. Investors have put their own money into the company expecting results. So where do they find the money to pay for these new taxes imposed. There are options: layoffs, cutting salaries and budgets for certain departments, which will affect their reinvestment plans tenfold than before, and raising prices on products. They implement them all since taxes are imposed in a time when business isn't so good. The results are amplified.

Where do we end up? A business that was growing had to adapt and did so but due to a higher demand from government, now instead shifted that tax burden down. Jobs are lost by employees, business expansion has slowed or stopped exponentially and prices of product have been raised affecting the consumer. After all no one is disagreeing the bottom line must be met.

This is trickledown economics. As much as it can trickle down in a good way it can also trickle down in a bad way. Of course I haven't covered every exact aspect with this scenario but it has the main points.
To the points PRO makes about less government intervention results in bad practice remember this: free market means voluntary exchange. Two parties will enter into a transaction if there is an agreement and only if they both benefit from the transaction. Greed is inherent in these exchanges, which is why it is good. My point is this. Government is never the answer. Everyone has self interests and beliefs. Politicians will not always make decisions that are right as opposed to ones that they will benefit from. After all this is why the constitution was established. A roadmap to successfully have man rule man, without resulting in tyranny. The framers of the constitution knew selfishness and self interest was vested in every man and was unavoidable. Therefore, the constitution was born. I would ask PRO, where on earth do you think you will find these angels to rule man?

Greed is good to have. Incentive is one reason why you strive for that extra penny on your paycheck. When you see a Mercedes Benz that you want, you know you must work harder and make more money in order to get what you desire. Don't be misguided into thinking the wealthy don't care about the poor or middle class. They have founded charities and donated more than some will make in a lifetime, not to mention establish good products and jobs. They have built what they have because of the working class, not without them. After all we all start off somewhere. You may say the rich give to charity because of necessity or obligation. Is there any difference? Does it really matter why? The idea is to oblige a bad person to do the right thing. Make that politician have to vote for the right thing being fearful of losing his next election. Don't encourage him to spend more to make people happy, don't encourage him to intervene in business where he will be bribed and lobbied into making decisions that will empower the corporations and give them all the power. Get him out of the equation. Leaving the business to be at the mercy of his workers, consumers and good business practices, otherwise you are just providing insurance for the bad corporations to do what they do with impunity.
Debate Round No. 2


Greed is Good

If what con is stating in his made up story of a pizza corporation, common sense implies that the company that cares more about the bottom line than the Employees that add value to the company, that is a classic example of what is wrong in America. What is wrong is that while reed is Good, paying for Labor at a discount is not right. Regardless of what Con states, that it is ok to pay people a slave wages, I say this is wrong. An employee should be paid strict;y to what value they add to the bottom line. As the bottom line improves so must the pay of the worker adding to the value of that bottom line. Sadly though most of the profit only goes to the CEO and the share holders. "What about the GUY OR WOMAN adding value to the company?


Regardless of CON's factual evidence jobs comes from a need to solve problems. When Problems are solved and products are made, Jobs are the by product. Again proper Legislation of Laws that help a business prosper are important. So in turn you can not have a Pro Growth Business environment with out regulations. Also if you have a good legislation system you also need proper Government. Fr proper Government you need revenue. So if we believe it is ok for the Mega Rich to have Yachts and that worker working at slave wages in your pizza company to raise his or her family at the homeless shelter, I strongly believe this is wrong.
Jobs comes and go daily but politics stays the sames long as the Republicans and Democrats refuse to do the Hard work of moving the country forward capitalism will be slowed down with the net being JOB LOSS


GabeTheFederalist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


deonclintmoore forfeited this round.


GabeTheFederalist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


deonclintmoore forfeited this round.


GabeTheFederalist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by GabeTheFederalist 5 years ago
i apologize i was out of town for the weekend and was unable to get to the computer...i will keep the round forfeited and allow PRO to continue any contentions. I will resume after PRO has posted his next comment.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
If it is the democrats fault too, you have conceded...
Posted by deonclintmoore 5 years ago
I am stating that it is both the Democrats as well as the Republicans Fault. every day the worker while at
work must solve problems. Sadly at the white house they care more about politics and Rhetoric an solving the hard problems.
Posted by HmblySkTrth 5 years ago
After reading the title, I thought it was legitimate. Because the mess we are in now goes way before Obama and will continue long after Obama is gone. This recession is not just a cyclical correction; it is a fundamental problem because of the strain of too many people and not enough resources, which will continue to get worse.

Now after reading the details, and seeing that Pro is saying it is all the republicans fault, I see it will be impossible to defend.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
"no government intervention as I am a realist and realize this is impossible in today's society."
It really isn't, however, this:
"What I advocate is minimal government intervention as possible."
is admirable enough for me. The idea that any amount of government is inherently necessary is a myth perpetuated by certain aggressive monopoly on arbitration that just happens to have an interest in perpetuating that myth :)
Be smart (and possibly cool and handsome like me). Become a voluntaryist.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Its fairly basic to show that stimulus can not work... I have no idea what pro thinks he is doing.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Wow, Someone who actually thinks Obama knows what he is doing.....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited first but showed up again and provided an explanation. Pro went out and stayed out.