You Choose the Resolution

The purpose of this round is to finalize the debate and defend your arguments. Again, thank you for giving me the opportunity for arguing with someone with significant experience in this community. ==Refutations / Defense of my Arguments==Knowing that my arguments are based on President Obama's economic reforms, my opponent particularly rebuts my point on Obama's effects on the labor force. Con presents a graph depicting the unemployment rate before and after Obama's initialization of stimulus package aka recovery act. Undeniably, there is a beneficial effect because of the stimulus packages, the result is seen projected by my opponent's own graph. As you can see, the unemployment reduced (dark blue line) after Obama's recovery act, as compared to the yellow and red dotted lines (before the recovery act). Clearly, my opponent's information has contradicted him. My opponent argues that the recovery acts initiated by Obama have prolonged the recession. Although, his data shows otherwise. **I find it a little bit unusual that my opponent posts a graph that clearly projects the result that the unemployment has fallen to a reasonable level after the recovery act. ** My opponent argues, "the stimulus package that was passed in response to the Great Recession prolonged the recession and unemployment". In response to that, I've presented a graph (please see the link since I don't know how to paste graph on the forum), which proves my opponent's assertion otherwise. According to the graph, in 2008-2009 (meaning, that during the first year of Obama's presidency, the unemployment prolonged, but not until long) the unemployment rate was unstable beyond grief; however, that was mainly during George W. Bush's presidency and the 2008 recession (1). Succinctly, the graph's information shows the colossal amount of jobs lost during Bush's presidency and his incompetency to handle this recession. Nevertheless, as of May 2010, a whopping result is seen. Obama was able to add more than 400k jobs to the U. S. 's economy. Then, as we proceed on to the following year, a considerable amount of jobs is still being added to the economy; plus, the unemployment falls dramatically, in January 2011, it has fallen below 7 percent (1). According to National Employment Monthly, "Approximately 255,000 jobs were created in July 2016, and the national unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.9 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics" (2), a significant amount of them lasted much longer than 2 years. Next, my opponent brings up the Dodd-Frank act, arguing that it was harmful to the U. S. 's economy because of the following reasons: "crushed smaller banks restricted access to credit, and planted the seeds of financial instability". Now, I'll concede that the act did limit opportunities and privileges for community banks because of the act's overwhelming regulations, but there's a good reason for it, and in general, the act has done more good than harm. Firstly, to address the issue with community banks, the CEA (Council of Economic Advisors) assured that the issue has been stabilized, according to today's data, "Economic evidence finds that community banks remain strong across a range of measures, from lending growth to geographic reach, including in their performance since financial reform passed in 2010" (3). In fact, many governmental representatives claim that the Dodd-Frank law has helped many community banks thrive. Sen. Elizabeth Warren asserts that community banks have started making more money after this legislation was passed: "their profitability seems to suggest they're doing better than ever after the regulations went into effect" (4). She claims that the reason many of those banks are / were suffering is because larger banks were "using smaller banks to weaken regulations". Knowing that smaller banks have $10 billion in assets, the Dodd-Frank law exempts them from some clauses / "regulations". Warren asserts that it's all one big political scandal, "Bank lobbyists love to come into our offices and talk about how community banks are being crushed and they need our help", she then argues,"but a lot of the time the changes that they're talking about aren't really about helping community banks" (4). Seeing that my opponent concurs with my point about the stabilization of the housing market, this point will not be up for discussion. ==Conclusion==I believe that it's important to reiterate 2 rules that were stated in the introductory round, these rules are voting guidelines: The BoP is shared, meaning that is you think it's a tie, don't vote. Most importantly, vote not based on your personal beliefs but on how well the arguments were presented. To restate my thesis: Obama has taken significant steps towards economic reforms, which have stabilized the labor force, housing market and ending the 2008 Recession. I will concede that after the significant research that I've contributed to this debate, Obama's presidency was far more beneficial for the U. S. 's economy than George W. Bush's presidency and some aspects of Ronald Reagan's presidency. Although, Reagan has contributed greatly to the U. S. , Obama beats him because of the numerous contributions that have bettered the labor force of the U. S. The choice is up to the voters, May the best one win. Thank you for the debate! Sources:[1]:. http://read.bi...; [2]:. http://bit.ly...;[3]:http://bit.ly...;[4]:http://bit.ly...;