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

But it is not spending, which actually creates debt.If it's a red herring, and irrelevant to the economy, then are you saying that taxation doesn't matter? Even if we differ in defintions of debt, and money flow, it has the same effect to the argument.Then why did you bring it up in the first place?I brought it up to say that he was forced to pay more, it was mandatory.But if you're going to say that you don't like their economic viewsIn the simplest of terms, an economic system is simply nothing more than a system of allocation of resources, goods, and services. Pure capitalism cares only about the number of dollars you will put towards something. As there is not equality of opportunity, this is not fair, those on the bottom have less, and not only from their own actions. Those with money rule, the corporatism we have seen recently within US politics is arguably nothing more than the merging of politics and the free market. Those who do not have money deserve protection, they need food, water, shelter, and other similar necessities. Leaving them open to abuse by the rich is not what I think should happen, and that is what Libertarians would do - leave everyone to the benefits, and abuse, that others put on them through trade.I love the idea of people being completely free to do what they want with their own money, their own time, their own labour, but people are not free, they are forced to work, they need an income to survive.Not according to the evidence. The best you've got is that Republicans are blocking the Buffet ruleWhich evidence? I seem to remember you posting a link that showed that Obama is being blocked from increasing any taxes (the last few paragraphs).It's about getting government away from the banks all together.Just like Iceland did? The government ended sold their state bank about ten years ago I believe, outside banks came in, made loads of money for a while, everyone was happy, but they were just part of the problem, put no safeguards in place, acted recklessly, and were destroyed in the recession. Now the prime minister is being put onto trial for gross negligence (the only head of state to be formally punished as part of the recession). It's worth remembering that the banks that did this were new to the country (all but one), they were not used to government involvement. They simply speculated, loaned out money, told everyone it was going fine, had massive rates of leverage, and then it all fell to shit.So no, I don't agree that deregulating the banks is a good idea, either economically, or from a humanitarian sense (banks in many countries now refuse to lend to anyone those who need it, because they see it as 'high risk'. I understand taking a harsher tone on lending, but blocking off everyone, without considering them, is bad for people. They now only lend to businesses with capital to pay them back for sure).A terrible one.I'm sorry I trust bishops to stand up for the poor, it's not like they spend their life following a doctrine that tells them to do exactly that.But in all honesty, I haven't read around it too much, and don't have time to do so now, however, it's not hard to find criticisms from other people in a better position to judge it than me.