The Instigator
RexConte
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Beginner
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

What FDR Did in his first 2 Years compared to the Obama Administration & Why I am Voting for Governo

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 981 times Debate No: 26046
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

RexConte

Pro

What FDR Did in his first 2 Years compared to the Obama Administration &
Why I am Voting for Governor Romney
I think it is time for a change in presidential leadership. This is a tough decision for me this time around, as I voted for President Obama in 2008 when he was clearly the best candidate. But I can not fail to mention how Mr. Obama missed an opportunity in 2009 and 2010 to initiate major job creation legislation (beyond the GM lifeline effort) when the Dems controlled the both branches of government. A look a history reveals what FDR did in his first 2 years (to create jobs and bring down the rate of unemployment dramatically) when faced with the same, if not worst situation.
As an African-American voter, it is hard to describe the feeling (of pride, tears, and glee) I felt on inaugural day in 2009 when Mr. Obama was sworn in. My decision to vote Republican (my parents" traditional party) this time is a difficult but necessary one (and one I think which is best for our nation).
My decision, however, is based on the obvious fact that America needs an economic reboot and although lacking in emotional intelligence (big time), former Gov. Romney (when focused) has a very good business head on his shoulders. I reckon a President Romney will figure a way out of these 3+ years of economic quagmire with his considerable business acumen gleaned from 25 years in the private sector.
Consider this: an outgoing President leaves office and as Bill Clinton said leaves the incoming President "a total mess". Unemployment reaches double digits. The first year of the new President"s term is ranked as the worst of the Depression (1933-1934). The incoming President"s party captures the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate"complete control of government. The new President does not waste a minute of time with the complete control of government, he acts! Over the next 4 years, unemployment fell by ⅔ in Roosevelt"s first term (from 25% to 9%, 1933"1937). Admittedly, Roosevelt was fortunate to not only control Congress during his first 2 years in office but in the final 2 years of his first term as well. However, his major job flurry activities occurred during his first two years (1933 & 1934). Looking back now, Roosevelt"s response to the crisis was swift and decisive, especially in year one of his administration.
As a corporate HR director, I have done and reviewed many employee annual performance appraisals. If Mr. Obama were a corporate employee, his performance appraisal would range from unsatisfactory to a performance improvement plan (PIP). Unlike FDR, President Obama missed opportunities to make substantial job program improvements to the sagging economy when his party controlled the executive and legislative branch of government in 2009 and 2010. Critical momentum and times was lost in those years when the Democrats could have rammed through big job-creating legislation.
Rex Conte
Oak Park, IL
Beginner

Con

When FDR took the presidency, the most pressing issue on EVERYONE'S mind is the economy. Nobody thought about foreign affairs or anything else. This is presumably true due to the extreme conditions pervading the world and the US at the time. When Obama took the presidency, the foreign affairs were still pressing due to the very recent attack on the US a few years back and President Bush's lauding the anti-terrorist effort. Bin Ladin was still alive and terrorism still loomed in the minds of many. Obama specifically addressed this issue with zeal when he took the presidency. He set out peace talks and made nuclear-armory agreements. He was working to end the Iraq war and weighing the implementation of soldiers in Afghanistan. The president was acting based on what he thought should have been immediately addressed. And he was right in doing so. Bush has made a debacle of Iraq and other foreign issues that Obama had to immediately clean up. You cannot blame Obama for acting on agenda. I know I may make myself out to be somewhat ignorant, but I didn't even know the recession was that bad during 2009. There was minimal media coverage; nearly nothing about it at the time. The American people were not as urgently pressing for economic solutions as they are now.
I would also like to address the debt problem. Obama cannot simply be blamed for the trillion dollar debt or for not fixing it. I will make a case example of previous president, George H.W. Bush. H.W. Bush, during election said:
"read my lips: no new taxes." Despite having said this, economic conditions called for a raise in taxes. Instead of doing the politically correct action and ignoring this, H.W. sacrificed his political career and input taxes to help the economy, saving it from further damage. Bill Clinton rode the presidency afterwards, enjoying the benefits of H.W. Bush's tax increase. By the end of Clinton's presidency, we were nearing the end of a national deficit and approaching the beginnings of a national surplus. Economic changes take time and are not limited to the presidency. You cannot judge the economy's performance through immediate relief (such as spending government money, going into deficit to create jobs.) Similarly, Obama, although not altogether faultless, cannot be blamed.
Let's evaluate some of Romney's economy-stimulating approaches.

Romney said: 'I have a plan to create twelve million new jobs.'
Time research found that "Independent economic forecasters predict the economy will gain about 12 million jobs over the next four years regardless of who is President. . .There's less to this pledge than meets the eye."
This means that, the twelve million jobs that are bound to happen can either be accredited to either George Bush, Barack Obama, or neither. I would love to believe the middle choice, but I frankly do not know so will not make such a statement.
The point is, economic performance is usually based on many causal factors. The presidents can only do so miuch (or two) did. Asides from direct influences like drawing from the nation's tax/reserve funds or borrowing into deficit, presidents cannot do much else besides implementing certain policies and crossing their fingers in hope that free enterprise will run smoothly. Many voters do not know this.
It is sad to think that if the economy turns for the better under Romney, Romney will take all credit and Obama will just be cast aside as the bad president. Because seriously, Romney is not going to do anything drastic like what Roosevelt did. The chief reason the economy recovered under Roosevelt was not the fact that he let the nation go into deficit to create jobs. No, the chief reason was that people recovered from the economic scare. People were willing to trust the banks again. People were willing to venture out and start businesses. People were willing to do what it takes to help their fellow people. Roosevelt did a GREAT job in creating, elevating and maintaining optimism and confidence in the US economic system. In the end, it was the people that most directly influenced the economy. I don't know if voting for Obama is the best, but the reasons you have for not voting him are very invalid.
Debate Round No. 1
RexConte

Pro

RexConte forfeited this round.
Beginner

Con

I extend all my arguments.
Forfeit by my opponent.
VOTE CON!
(and Obama)
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
FDR's acts as president outmatch that of nearly all other presidents after him. Comparing the nation's performance under Obama to the nation's performance under FDR does not prove anything
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
All Clinton did was to maintain Bush's policies, making sure they were not destroyed, and voila! Smooth presidency (except for the events caused by his roaming eye).
No votes have been placed for this debate.