Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

in terms of debt, the level of taxation is very important.Bill Clinton had a different view on things. It was about having taxes that can match the spending. However, if spending is out of control, increasing taxes doesn't help. this is why Clinton cut spending so much that taxes could actually be cut instead of needing any raise, while still having an annual surplus.My issue is that a society simply based on the value to which each person provides a good or service to another does not sound like a utopia to me.You're ignoring some of my points on a voucher program, but even so, it makes little sense to reward others for doing nothing. As well, as explained, government services provide a lot less to the public than private services. This is simply because pursuit of wealth increases overall wealth. People have more in Capitalistic countries than in Collectivist countries. This is what the USSR witnessed when they privatized more industries, and this was the BIGGEST realization for China as they went from Communist to practically Laissez-Faire economics.  Obviously, utopia is not possible, but that's something that I like about socialistic policies, that everyone has worth, value, and deserves equality.Socialistic policies do not increase the amount of goods and services available to people (unless you include Militaristic policies that have been the only historical instance where massive government spending has actually benefited the citizens in in their wants). Food and clean water supply goes up with private industries' efforts to make more money. Consumers want goods and services, private forces provide them.If you're worried about the poor, a voucher program (that would cut down spending and regulation greatly) would benefit them far more than a public service. Vouchers would give them the ability to choose at little to no cost to themselves. However, socialistic policies of government services and regulation only make things harder for the poor.Remember that countries with higher tax rates tend to have a lower wealth inequality rate (Scandanavian ones come to mind).I've given my explanation on Scandanavia and PrayerFails has given a different but also effective one as well. Wealth equality doesn't mean jack shit if the overall wealth is still low.The Ryan plan calls for little reformThe current Ryan plan is to appeal to the Mainstream Democrats who hated his voucher program for healthcare.over-regulation is one of themgeneral regulation does this. Unless you mean regulation ONLY in rich neighborhoods... The housing market crashed because of banks, CDO's & derivatives, pretending high risk options were completely safe, and frivolously acting bankers.It came from government incentives to "look out for the poor" who were actually the risky loans. It came from government taxes on businesses that didn't make these high risks. Out of interest, why do you feel that regulators have a responsibility to see these sort of things, if you are against them?I feel that you completely ignored my points that regulators should have no say in any of the business of the banks, and that general government should give absolutely no rewards to banks for any reasons. No subsidies, no tax incentives, no regulation, no interest fondling, and no bail-outs. Government should view banks as another business and should have no concern for them. This will remove their power over all of us who depend greatly on government currency yet require private industries to provide us with this government provision.Funny how you talk about how government hurts small businesses, then defend corporations actions which do the same.Explain.I trust them to say when the system would not meet needs and wants adequately.Why? forgive me, but this may just be my issue with debate in general, when others look to their pastors and school teachers as experts on very complex issues (especially to justify the surrendering of liberty for the sake of security that has never been shown to exist or be successful).but the commentary they provide is not worthless.To you, maybe. To me, it is very worthless.