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

yet it's only gotten worse, from what I've heard.His policies on the War on Drugs are even more authoritarian than Bush's.Less taxing means more debt.But it is not spending, which actually creates debt. Taxing is unnecessary to continue spending. Government will spend as much as it wants and will tax people as much as they want. We can't just say "increase taxes to reduce debt" when the debt could have been avoided all together. Once again, it's a red herring.it largely falls outside of his mandateThen why did you bring it up in the first place?Bill Clinton, however, signed welfare reform. This was a Federal act.I like this part of them, but disagree with othersyet you're not specific on how their economics will hurt anyone. You've avoided pointing to specific, first saying "welfare is necessary" and then saying "well, Obama has no control over welfare."Now, economics may not be your strong suit (it was once something i hardly considered), but if you're going to say that you don't like their economic views, you should be more specific on what is wrong with them.Regardless, he's making an effort, and being blocked off, for no real reasonNot according to the evidence. The best you've got is that Republicans are blocking the Buffet rule, even though I already described how the Buffet rule is a "red herring."You wish to completely deregulate the banks?It's about getting government away from the banks all together. The banks, how they currently operate, could not survive without government involvement. They rely on subsidies, standardized currency, human controlled inflation and regulation to keep themselves in power. Without it they would hold little power over our wealth and currency. Currently, the banks dictate most money powers. They will continue to dictate as long as government stays involved with the affairs of the banks. This isn't about letting the large trample the small, it's about removing the power-source for this monstrosity that government created in the first place. Big government is the problem here, not lack of it.bankers operate in their own self interest, not in that of the bank, and not in that of the country.A bank without government would NEED to operate in the interest of the consumers or else it will attract none. Currently people feel that they need banks. While the privatization of banks seemed like a good idea during the transitional period between Centralized and non-centralized banks, what ended up happening was government assisted greedy men. You can not expect the private sector to do what it does best if government is still involved, as it always has been. The banks are protected from competitive currency because they hold all currency rights. The banks are paid by governments to continue being banks, which removes most financial liability (especially when you're large enough to "need" a bailout). And the banks are encouraged by leaders (government bureaucrats like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to make poor decisions but given money to make up for those poor decisions. This isn't some magical imbecile who happens to be running a bank, this is a guy basically being given money to make poor decisions with all of our money. It was inevitable with government involvement, as Ron Paul accurately predicted.Remember that the heads of banks who brought about the recession got hundreds of millions of dollars, that sort of behaviour would only become more common,Not if you eliminate government involvement in the banking market.I was simply using them as an example.A terrible one.I have many complaints of Republican behaviour, and I can only imagine that this budget is just more of the same.I'm sure you do, people complain a lot. The importance is substance, though.