Obama

I apologize for not posting this sooner and for the rough draft form. But I got rather busy. First of all in pro's first statement he says my sources contradict other sources on the site. Some of my sources are pretty old so that is why there are contradictions. Inflation could lead to a big or even huge economic crisis and my opponent has not attested my statements. Obama care was estimated to cost $700 billion per year. Obama still pushed the bill despite most Americans disagreeing with it. He said after it was passed they would agree with it but that hasn’t happened. http://townhall.com... Qote from source- "Thirty-seven percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed. That's basically unchanged from last March, when 39 percent supported the law and 59 percent opposed the measure." He hurts small businesses with his over taxing. Lowering the minimum wage would encourage people to hire. And so would lowering the taxes. The harder life is the less likely it is a person will hire. Obama makes it harder for people to employ that is how he is increasing the unemployment. I already stated this but my opponent states there is no warrant of how he is increasing unemployment “My opponent then claims that taxing the rich wouldn't stop the debt but that is irrelevant seeing as, as my opponent says, "It would only be billions of dollars." which is a huge amount. " This taking my words out of context. I said take ALL the money from everyone with $500,000 up. Now of course the government would not take all the money from every one with $500,000 and up. He would only take a very small fraction of that. I was just showing that even if we took all the money from the rich it would not do much. And Billions is a small amount if you compare it to our debt. Just say we got fifty billion (probably would be less) that would be very little if compared to the trillions we need. " Also what must be noted is that my opponent is trying to make it so our current president must eliminate debt but this is an unfair notion. There has been 1 time in American history when we have been completely debt free and that was with Andrew Jackson after he stopped the Federal Bank. It is unfair to assume that Obama's job is to eliminate debt seeing as it simply can't be done without the abolishment of the federal bank.[2]” It was never my intention to make it sound like. I was not trying to say he should pay it all off. I agree that would be ridiculous. But he has to start paying off the debt, or it will be our children’s children paying it off, instead of our children. He spends way to much as I have shown. Which is a big reason why his approval rating has dropped so much. “Secondly, if we are criticizing welfare why are we not criticizing it's founder, FDR?” I would criticize FDR but as this debate has nothing to do with him I refrained from doing so. I don't really get pro's point. you must have certain requirements and usually the help is in the form of child support ect[5] Another important point which kills the argument that the people can be lazy is thusly: People take advantage of this. They will have more kids to get welfare. They won’t marry the man they have the kids with, because a single mother will get more benafits than a mother who has a husband, and it gives money for drugs. Lets face it people are lazy. If they have the chance to get money without working they will take it, and make it so that it is kept that way. "The criteria for these welfare benefits are that the heads of household are working to obtain job training which will enable them to leave the welfare programs."[5] That is partly true a good honest person would go look for a job while he is getting paid by the government. But there are many millions of poor people in America you can’t assume every one is going to be honest. Regarding insults: I can find no evidence for this and my opponent provides none. I did provide evidence for this. He insulted our biggest allies by giving unusable DVDs. After they gave us priceless gifts. And he sent a letter to the former president of France instead of the current president. If you are running to be the president of a republic that is built off the free market, you are not going to be a socialist. Obama and the press hid the fact that he was socialist. About socialist countries prospering: I guess it all depends on who is the head of the socialist government. If a good man is president socialism may be good, for a while. But socialism gives a lot of power to the government. It is inevitable that we will have bad presidents. And I think my sources indicate at the very least that he supports socialists and socialist organizations. Quote from source-"The lower unemployment rate...came not only because more people found jobs, but also because 260,000 had given up looking and ceased being counted as unemployed." My opponents own source states that the ones who have given up looking are not counted as unemployed. Doesn’t this prove that the unemployment rate is being under exaggerated and is actually even higher than it is said to be? I had already read about that fact but didn’t do any research on it so I’m glad this source talked about it. I have one major objection to my opponents statements of the positive things Obama has done. Neither he nor his source have properly backed up his claims. Unreliability of his source. > http://www.bspcn.com... I find that source unreliable as it uses no examples. For example it says “saved wall street” it doesn’t say how Obama saved wall street. Obama actually blames wall street for stuff quite a lot. I’m not asking my opponent to explain this, I’m just showing the unreliability of his source. Also some of those so called “good things” it states he has done are ridiculous. Like winning the Nobel peace prize. It was way to early in his presidency for him to get a Nobel peace prize. “he has actually relaxed anti-american tensions around the globe,” Neither he nor the source provided any evidence of this. And I showed how our biggest allies have been clearly insulted by Obama. “he has shifted focus to the main threat of terrorism, Afghanistan,” It was my thought that my opponent disagreed on the war in Afghanistan. As he even did a debate on it. So the question is should he be able to state that as a good thing if he argues it to be a bad thing in other debates? I will now let my opponent post his argument for round 3.