goerge bush was a good president

This is a devils advocate.

"He passes massive tax relief for the american people because they needed and that setted off huge job growth for many years he greatly stimulated the economy"

During Bush Years, Household Income Declined For First Time On Record. According to a report by the Center for American Progress: "The Bush economic cycle saw the first decline in median household incomes of any cycle since 1967, when the Census Bureau began tracking household data." [1]

So his plan didn't work.

Bush Tax Cuts Inefficient, Didn't Stimulate The Economy. [1]

The tax policy center said these taxes didn't work.

"He freed Iraq took out a very bad man and leader"

The state of Iraq has done nothing in the past nine years that would in any way justify the United States in making war against it. [2]

Like serioisly what did they do to us? Thre was no WMD's or anything. Also American troops have died in that war, would you give up your kids just to get rid of one dictator? Think about it, your loved kid, or some guy you vaugly remember from sunday news.

"He greatly wiped out al queda and the taliban"

And in 2005, Bush shut down the CIA’s unit dedicated to finding bin Laden in order to shift resources to Iraq. “The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants,” [3]

He shut down al quada by killing lower level operatives through unconitutional wars that killed US troops.


"He worked hard to stop the econmic collaspe"

Work hard =/= results. I can work hard all I wan't getting F's no matter how hard I tried means I am a bad student.


"he tried to reform socil sercuirty and add life to it"

First, he drew a mocking standing ovation from Democrats by saying that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," even though, as I said, he'd never submitted specific legislation. [4]

Never really tried.

"he reformed immigration with more security at the border"

But at a price:


The troops would be paid for with some of the $1.9 billion requested from Congress to supplement border enforcement this year. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said he intends to call a hearing on the National Guard deployment "at the earliest possible opportunity." [5]

That's what the National guard woudl get paid. So out 5 trillion dollar debt plus that is a downturn. So did he secure the broder no, did he help yes, did it cost money yes. So minor problem vs big money.

"he passed the clean air act that cleaned the air"

Yes but it had a price:

It:
a. hurt the economy
b. had a lot of loopholes
c. didn't over ALL sources of pollution. [8]

"he reformed medicare making it better for millions of seniors"

IF you ook at my source social secutiry amd medicare payroll taxes vs benifits has been declinign for a while, and it did so under bush as well. SO his reforms didn't work. [9]



My arguments are liek the ones above, but I need to add 2 more:

C1: The debt

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The graph shows an increase of debt at the very end of bush's term and a moerate increase in the midde of it.

Also increase in debt 2005-9

+2,135 billion
+7.1% of GDP [10]

It rose under his term, his buggest decrease in debt was -0.9. Fail.

C2: The wars where unconsitutional

all of the Democratic presidential candidates (except Sen. Joseph Lieberman) criticized President George W. Bush for his unilateral recklessness in starting a war against Iraq, they are missing a larger point: The invasion was not just reckless. It was unconstitutional. [11]

It is time to set the record straight. The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress. [11]

that = unconisutional

The war in Afghanistan is an unconstitutional violent costly occupation of another country who never attacked us , Alqaeda has left Afghanistan we are now pursuing the Talibans who never attacked us , whose interest do we serve by continuing this exercise in futility ??? [12]

=conclusion=

I agree with you but am doing a devils advocate. Good luck. Bus is a bad president for the reasons above. And my rebbuttals where my other argments not listed in my contentions. Vote CON!


sources:

http://politicalcorrection.org... [1]
http://www.rense.com... [2]
http://thinkprogress.org... [3]
http://www.washingtonpost.com... [4]
http://www.foxnews.com... [5]
http://mediamatters.org... [6]
http://blogs.wsj.com... [7]
http://www.businessweek.com... [8]
http://www.justfacts.com... [9]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [10]
http://www.albionmonitor.com... [11]
http://ronpaul1.blogspot.com... [12]

Just before I start leave obama out of this, we are debating bush not obama.

Refutation 1: Economy

The last two years of his presidency were characterized by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis, which resulted in dramatic government intervention to bailout damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy. [1]

So his last 2 years his economic policies stopped working.

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt said the middle class will not benefit enough from the tax cut and the wealthy will reap unfairly high benefits. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle argued that the tax cut is too large, too generous to the rich and too expensive. [1]

Also the first tax cut cost $144.5 billion [1]

And the tax cuts did little to the economy:

The truth is that there is virtually no evidence in support of the Bush tax cuts as an economic elixir. To the extent that they had any positive effect on growth, it was very, very modest. [2]

So the economy fixed itself on it's own. Free markets have a tendency to heal themselves over time.

Refutation 2: The debt

We are debating GWB not obama. So a comparison isn't fair as obama has NOTHING to do with the resolution. I will expand this argument:

But it is high time to remind the American public of Bush's policies that caused so much of the debt we are debating
In his last term in office, Bush increased discretionary spending by 48.6 percent.
130 current members of congress voted to increase the debt limit under Bush. [3]

So a comparison isn't fair, let's stick to ONE PERSON and stay with the resolution. Adding obama is a red herring.

Refutation 3: Education

President Bush's budget would cut money for education, the second straight time he has sought less school spending after a first term of steady increases.

The Education Department would get $54.4 billion for discretionary spending in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. That would amount to a cut of $3.7 billion, or 6.4 percent, from this year. [4]

I find it funny I am getting this from fox news...

A year ago, Bush proposed cutting the education budget by 1 percent, to $56 billion from $56.6 billion. Congress eventually approved a slight increase instead [4]

He wanted cuts first term, but congress blocked it.

Also when he called for education increases congress ignored him. Rendering him a weak leader with persuasion when it comes to Congress, a downside.

Later he ACTUALLY succeeded in cutting education:

Congress cut only five of the 48 programs Bush slated for elimination in last year's budget proposal. [5]

So he didn't get all of what he wanted, but still he succeeded in a decrease in education.

"At a time when expectations for states and school districts are at their highest under the No Child Left Behind Act, the President's investment in education is headed in the opposite direction," Jennings contended. [5]

So his first policies = good, but later he made up for it by helping cut the funds.

Conclusion:

My opponent has not refuted my main arguments and made a red herring with the usage of obama. Also I belive I have done well in this debate, VOTE PRO.




sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com... [2]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3]
http://www.foxnews.com... [4]
http://www.stateline.org... [5]

R1: Obama

resolution =/= obama. No rules indicate a comparison. You are in a red herring.

R2: spending

My opponent just condeded my point. This argument prevails.

R3: Education

1. you provided no source to prove ANY of your point.
2. He did have like 2 sources saying he did
3. use sources

R4: tax cuts


I have proven they didn't work.


=conclusion=

My opponent has NO sources to prove his points, therefore he has only starements. He ignroes or drops many of my points from round 1. Also he only has blank statements. I have sources + logic on my side. My sources trums sentencs with no facts. So I deserve soruces. Also I have refuted his arguments, as he has tried but failed to do, I have refuted already. Also his arguments are shorter then I expected. For reasons above, and his non proven arguemnts, I urge you to vote CON! I see no reason to contitiue as I was the really the one who started refuting.