It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Challenge Match: Cenpuppie vs. Druid42: Obama deserves a Second Term

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:41 PM
I would like to thank Druid42 for giving me the first chance at this online debate. And another thank you to the other fighters on the forum as well, as your standards made me want to join your vaunted ranks. And a final thank you to the ATS community, we are a part of the collective.

Now to beans and biscuits.

The topic for this debate is "Obama deserves a Second Term".

I will be arguing the "Pro" side. Druid42 will be arguing the "Con".

Opening Statement

In the ongoing debate i will be arguing that Obama does indeed deserve a second term in light of the choice for the Republicans, that of the Romney/Ryan card. When you examine the situation this country was in when he was sworn in, how could he not deserve a second term? You had a failing economy, the auto industry was in taters, Wall Street was broke, you had one war and another one just starting. Did i also mention he managed to find and bring to justice the number one fugitive that has managed to elude the Bush Whitehouse for almost two terms?

Then you have the soaring employment and the collapse of the housing bubble. Under Obama's leadership, the auto industry is in rebound, unemployment though high is falling, and most importantly he pulled our troops out of Iraq. The stock market though low is not in the abyss, where it would have been if the Obama administration hadn't of wisely decided to give them enough liquid assets so they can remain in business.

After all he has been through, i find it peculiar that a vast majority of voting Americans think that the alternative, that of Mitt Romney would be a better choice. This debate will let you know why he deserves his second term. He has seen us through so much, at least let him steer the ship until he cannot steer any longer.

posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:49 PM

Oh No, He Don't!

The 44th POTUS deserves only one term. He has not earned nor retained my trust, and does not deserve a second term. During the course of this debate I will show the readers how ineffective his solutions have been, and how allowing him to serve another four year term will surely ruin this country's economy.

A country in fiscal crisis cannot keep spending. That's unsound economics, but Obama's choice is to create an even higher deficit, which is currently over the 16 Trillion mark, the highest number for a country's deficit in recorded history.

It's as if the POTUS is out of touch with reality. There's been no campaign ads tackling the issues at hand, such as balancing the budget, immigration reform, and tightening our belts to fight the tough economic times surely ahead of us. There's been desperate attack ads on Romney, misinformation spread as if fact, and little focus on how to fix the issues facing us.

In this debate we'll examine Obama's campaign promises, and see how he fulfilled them. He promised jobs, and yes, shovel ready jobs got instant funding, and tons of money was spent on infrastructure.

I saw the effects of this personally while watching the perfectly good paved intersections at a nearby town torn up and replaced with red faux brick a few years ago. Yes, the painted crosswalks was replaced with red brick. Total cost of the project was 2.3 million dollars for a total of 12 intersections, just to replace a perfectly functional painted asphalt crosswalk at an intersection with fake red brick. I had to take detours to avoid the construction, and the end result was basically a frivolous waste of money. Sure, the workers were employed for the summer, but I watched in amazement at the short term solutions being presented by the current administration. Projects like that took place all over the US, and now those workers are once again unemployed.

Unemployment decreased because construction workers went back to work on infrastructure jobs, but we all know those are seasonal and temporary jobs. In effect, put people back to work by creating temporary jobs supplied with money from stimulus money, but those are not long term jobs, and did little for a long term solution. The 8.4% unemployment figure is actually closer to 22%. There are not many long term permanent full-time jobs left in this country, and focus on creating sustainable manufacturing jobs has completely lost focus while the entitlements have increased.

Another point to address is "under-employment", people who have skills but are forced to take jobs well below their abilities just to survive, those who lost their jobs during the recession, and could only find work in under paying jobs. They work part-time, or have several jobs, just to survive. Those are the working class of America, those who go to work, the "middle class", ever striving to put food on their table, and to provide for their families, and to make ends meet. They go to work everyday, file their yearly tax returns, and have noticed their gross income shrinking over the past few years. They are not prospering, they are not saving money, they are working just to survive. They have to pay 3.50 to 3.90 for a single gallon of gas just to drive to their job. They see no relief in sight, and little hope is left with this current out of touch administration.

The current slogan in the Obama Administration is "Foward". What does that mean? More of the same? Sorry, but there is no "stimulus" money left in the Congressional Budget, and no way to magically solve these problems that our country faces. We simply can't throw more money at the problem and hope for a solution. That's not sound economics, and I'm led to believe that as long as Obama remains as POTUS, we will continue to decline from our position as a once great country. Words like "Hope", and "Change", once useful and meaningful, are left empty and hollow after seeing the direction this country has taken after the past few years. We, as Americans, simply can't afford more of the same.

The major issue is the economy in the upcoming election. Issues such as abortion, gay rights, immigration, and homeland security still affect us, but without a strong economy to support our stance on such issues, we have become weak and have lost direction. Our current POTUS has lost focus, and with that statement, I'll rest my opening statement, and pass the debate back over to my opponent.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:36 PM
Considering the state of the economy when Obama become president back in late 2008 many believe that he did an admirable job considering. The Bush white house got the ball rolling by increasing federal spending by as much as 50% if not more. Not to mention the burst of the housing bubble which helped drag the economy into the recession. And a collapsing auto industry.

He never said that it was going to be easy. Unlike Bush who was handed the reigns with a surplus and relative quiet in the Middle East, Obama's presidency started of bad. Two Wars bad. Obama knew it was troubling times for the country. He still decided to do it. What people fail to remember is that no matter who the president was going to be at this time, said president would be recognized at the man at fault for the current state of the country. Economical what is going on right now is due the decisions made when Bush was in office. That's how a tax plan gets incorporated into the economy. Remember back when Bush threw us a bone and gave everyone a free check? Well, that money isn't free for you and me.

Change doesn't happen over night nor is it easy. You have to work towards it, inch by inch. No need to look at the unemployment numbers. What can we say that hasn't already been said. They are a reflection of the current economy. Is it bad? Yes. It it could have been worse? Oh definitely yes. With that stimulus package, a per verb ail "band-aid on a broken leg", bad decision or not, Obama decided to prevent something that would spiraled out of control. We can only envision what America would be like with a out of business and defunct Wall Street, combined with a out of business auto industry and it's reliant satellite co business partners with the tatters of a failed banking system. How hard would it be to get a job in that situation? How many unemployed would be trying to receive some form of federal assistance then? Much more. More than what we have now.

You did have "infrastructure spending". That was a temporary fix for a bad situation. However in my parents town thanks to that money, a bridge is being constructed at a crucial main artery going through the town. The older bridge gets taken down. And that is what the money is and was mean for.

The issue about immigration reform. Why go down this road again. I thought this was 2012 and not back in 1800s when the poor European immigrants (who the republicans seem to be descendant from according to their speeches at the RNC) came over to this country and Congress was up in arms about the "immigration" problem. We have immigration laws on the books, ready to go and be enforced. More laws are simply going to make you feel more safe and won't tackle the real problem. It will give you the "we're doing something about it" feel to those that aren't immigrants, even though those with a broader vision easily see why the immigration problem is a problem.

That illegal immigrant would not be able to work in America if he could not find a job. It's that simple. Industries such as construction and house keeping are notorious for using immigrants and i mean the less than reputable one that do hire illegal immigrants. They are hiring workers to do a job for cheaper than they could if they had an American working and i mean financially. No taxes, no health insurance and a bigger bottom line. Why blame the worker who is looking for that American dream when you have the employer there to exploit that exact situation.

Like i said, change isn't easy. And there are no easy solutions to our problems because they weren't created by decisions made by Obama. He deserves a second term simply because he kept us afloat. It's easy to point a finger at one man say "He's to blame!" Of course he is, he's in charge. But you cannot fault the same person for decisions he had no part in. Change is gradual and not radical.. both in nature and in human nature.

Now, when i think to the changes the Republicans would have made, would their have been any changes at all? Look at the message of change they are saying now. Look at the lengths that they went to simply to make Romney the front runner. Think about how a McCain White house would have dealt with the current problems.

Give Obama his second term. He showed America that if anything, with his leadership he can keep the country from falling apart.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:30 PM

Whatcha talking bout, Willis?

Remember back when Bush threw us a bone and gave everyone a free check? Well, that money isn't free for you and me.

That check you got? It was from the 248 billion dollar surplus that Clinton left us with. Yes, the US budget had a 248 billion dollar surplus when he handed the reigns to Bush.

Bush saw that, and issued checks. Government surpluses are a good thing to see, it shows a strong economy, and plenty of jobs available.

That surplus went to -248 billion by the time Bush left office, heck with 9/11 and all happening during his term. That "Shock and Awe" was pretty, but put a huge chunk in that budget surplus. Fireworks like that cost millions of dollars. This debate isn't about how Bush spent us into a 248 million dollar deficit, but he did. When Obama took office, the budget was negative 248 billion. (Give or take a few.)

Bush spent 496 billion dollars in his budget. Obama has 16 trillion in his now.

What happened? There's no precedent to refer to!

This is the worst deficit in human history for any government.

Look, here are the facts:

Obama took office with a 248 billion deficit. He may have added another 100 billion to it, or heck, even match it. Call it a 500 billion deficit, as acceptable, for the sake of this debate, for a new president to present his direction. The deficit didn't decrease during Obama's stay in office. It expanded. When you have a deficit in your budget, you don't spend more, you spend less. Obama didn't.

He poured out money everywhere. "Stimulus Money," got it. Spending money you don't have.

The deficit didn't double. Nope. Obama would be an awesome President if he got the 248 billion deficit turned around, and even had a few billion surplus to his budget. He doesn't.

From an accounting aspect, the "Stimulus" enacted something only the Republicans know about (yes, sarcasm): Compounding Interest.

The government didn't have the money to spend, so they "borrowed" it. The USA has (currently) a AAA credit rating, as an entity, and can borrow money on a whim, with the promise of paying it back, with interest.

Unfortunately, interest is compounded on a regular basis. Daily, weekly, or monthly.

Let's go minimums for the sake of this debate. Say a 7% interest rate compounded monthly. Fair? More than.

Let's take, for example, the 248 billion Obama in deficit he was saddled with when he took office. Multiply it by 7%. That's 17 billion in interest alone. (Brain hurts!) 17 billion in interest? For one month? Unreal, and that's just a hypothetical situation of the deficit numbers.

We'll take that 17 billion per month, and multiply by 12. 34 billion per year in interest. That's the compounding interest factor that that the current administration doesn't get.

And THAT, my friends, was at the BEGINNING of his administration! Unbelievable.

WE have new numbers to run.

The deficit is now 16 trillion. Multiply by 7%. That's 1.12 trillion in interest alone, compounded monthly. (Brain explodes!) Per month, so multiply by 12. That's 13.44 trillion a year in interest alone.

And THAT, my friends, is where we are in this administration.

He deserves a second term simply because he kept us afloat

You can toss everyone on a sinking ship a life-preserver, but it does not save the ship. Sure, you can float and survive, until a rescue comes, but you can't place reliability on that kind of thinking. It's not solid enough to be worthwhile of trust. He had a chance. The numbers don't lie. We now have completely unpayable debt, no means left to pay it, and the system needs re-set somehow.

You can't say Obama knows how to fix that. Neither may Romney. I Honestly don't think anyone can, but, IMO, Romney has the most experience with insolvent companies. Yeah, it's sad to admit, but with the debt and compounded interest, we are unable to pay our bills as a country. Something radical is in order, or it all collapses around us.

I'll close my position with a possible solution, but I'll rest to allow my opponent a chance to counter.

Over to you, cenpuppie!

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:10 PM

I will close my side of the argument with a few highlights, statements i would like to counter to my opponent.

The deficit didn't decrease during Obama's stay in office. It expanded. When you have a deficit in your budget, you don't spend more, you spend less. Obama didn't.

Yes, it did. He had to. What did he say? He told us we where going to have to bit the bullet. Sucks don't it? It's alot better than having your infrastructure cave in with some real chaos going on. It's this or you can let America go the way of Greece and letting those industries just.. falter along with cutting crucial necessities (and i'm mentioning necessities, not $30,000 in pork because the necessities always get cut, never the pork.. hence the name) would have sunk this country into a massive depression.

Actual corporations and companies would loose billions in capital just off a defunct Wall Street alone. And those companies and corporations would have massive layoffs to offset the lost in revenue, we all know they would.

He poured out money everywhere. "Stimulus Money," got it. Spending money you don't have.

Hey now, it's not entirely his fault everyone with their hand out got some. He approved of the package, which our back alley friends could and did modify as they see fit, seeing as how it's the Federal Reserve who loaned out the money anyway.

The government didn't have the money to spend, so they "borrowed" it. The USA has (currently) a AAA credit rating, as an entity, and can borrow money on a whim, with the promise of paying it back, with interest.

Yup, that's entirely correct. Unfortunately you failed to mention the whole truth, allow me to amend that train of thought. ALL the money the government used and uses since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created is borrowed. The government doesn't have the power to issue it's own currency, since Congress handed that right over to the Federal Reserve.

We now have completely unpayable debt, no means left to pay it, and the system needs re-set somehow.

Every dollar bill you hold in your hand is a shackle on yourself and the government.. sobering isn't it? The government can't pay that debt off to the federal reserve, which is the entity that prints the money.

Let me break it down. If i was the Fed and you was the government and you needed legal tender to pay your employees for example, you would have to borrow a set amount of money from me, that i would in turn print. You want say.. $10, but with interest, you owe me $11. You give out the dollar to your employees but you don't have the money to pay me back the $1. See how that works? It has to borrow money to pay off its debt and accumulates more debt. The government probably could pay it off, but not realistically especially when you have recently created entities like Homeland Security and

We just need to focus, calm down and let the president do what we elected him to do, keep this country together and lead us through dark times. We've all seen the gaffes Romney has said no need to reminisce. Are you going to hand the reigns of the presidency to a man who believes that middle American income is around $200,000?! I used that because you can just imagine what tax cuts and a lean budget with "needed cuts" looks like to a man whose normal company are those that have the income of the upper tier of the wage scale. He probably can balance the books, but be careful what you wish for.

Ultimately the choice is yours, thank you.

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:58 PM

Only 43 days left!

The polls will open, and America will vote for their choice for POTUS. It's all down to stumping, with each candidate trying to present their position before the election.

In closing, I'd like to state that Obama doesn't deserve a second term. My opponent wishes to let the current direction of this country continue on it's path, and I wish to express that it is vital to the future welfare of this country that we don't allow that to happen. America needs to let their voice be heard on Election Day.

History denotes which presidents get re-elected. Unemployment is a deciding factor. Depending on which statistics you wish to look at, the unemployment rate is between 8.4% and 22%. That's between 28,980,000 and 75,900,000 people out of work, given a population of 345 million. I'd like to posit that as a sobering fact, and that is not including the "underemployed".

Over the month of August, 26 states reported an increase unemployment. Employers aren't sure about the upcoming economy, and aren't hiring new employees. Budgets are tight, and we are not thriving as a country under this administration.

It's time to change.

There are those that I've talked to, who voted for Obama because he was charismatic, and the only other choice at the time was an elderly man with family history of heart problems, and the craziest running mate ever. They gave him a chance. I did as well.

Well, charisma doesn't solve problems. Solutions do. The candidate running against Obama has a solid history in business management, a Harvard degree, and the backing of many multi-millionaires willing to invest their money in job creation.

Times are different now from 4 years ago. The government can't afford to spend more money, but the private sector can. Tax breaks for the rich? Yes. That has been the most negative aspect of Obama's re-election campaign, but the smartest choice ever. Reign in your dislike of the "uber-rich" for a moment, and ponder the repercussions.

That 1% we all despise? Well, they have the money to re-invest. That's where jobs are created.

A brief example:

You make 3 million a year. You get a 2% tax break because you make over 250,000 a year. Mind you, you don't get 60,000 from the government, it's 60,000 less you have to pay in taxes. What do you do with that 60,000, since you are not paying it to the federal government? You re-invest it. You become an "angel" investor, and if you are familiar with Stremor, you'll know they got 2 million in start-up funding.

To follow with the example, that 2 million investment created several new salaried jobs. Real jobs, not "shovel-ready" jobs but positions in a company that has a unique product, and more permanence than a construction project. Those new hirees will be paying taxes on their income, at their tax rate, and that's what supports the system.

People working jobs and paying taxes keeps the system functioning. When unemployment goes up, the system shudders. We are seeing that now. The "uber-rich" I mentioned above? They don't want the system to fail. They know they have more to lose than the rest of us.

We have to hand over the reigns. We need new direction. We have to let the investors know that their investments will be well spent, and that we can re-grow the economy with new jobs.

We could also re-elect Obama, and continue down the same path.

It's OUR choice.

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 06:55 AM
The Judgments are in!

While Cenpuppie came out with a nice Romney versus Obama approach that, I wish, could have been more detailed, Druid42 clearly came out with one of the best opening statements I have had the pleasure of reading since these debates have restarted. This Round is definitely his. I really enjoyed reading Cenpuppie’s rebuttal as he answers various points from his opponent while putting out fires from the previous administration. Druid42 expands on the economy only, expanding on a point which was already raised in his opening statement. An enjoyable read from both but this Round goes to Cenpuppie. Both closing statements further fall for the economy but Druid42 makes it a stronger case as to why one should not reconsider Obama for re-election, the con position in this debate. While I wish that both debaters would have deepened their thoughts on other important factors to consider in these election times, it was still an interesting read. For taking both the opening and closing statements, Druid42 is the winner.

In this debate, on whether our current President deserves a second term, Cenpuppie seems to approach the argument with the "impassioned plea" approach, which will resonate with people who agree with him, but largely be ignored by those who either disagree or are undecided.

This is contrasted with Druid42's presentation of facts and figures associated with the current administration's performance and clearly demonstrate President Obama to be an incompetent bumbler who has caused serious damage to the country and would likely bring it to utter ruin in a second term.

Unfortunately, Druid has made a number of mathematical and factual errors in his representations (such as confusing "budget deficit" and "national debt", as well as how interest rates are calculated,) which cast doubt on the "utter ruin" conclusion, but Cenpuppie fails to catch these errors and dispute them.

Rather than an impassioned plea, I think that Cenpuppie would have been better served to focus on hard data associated with the achievements of the Obama administration (slight though they may be) and to verify the facts presented in the "con" position, and refute those that are invalid. As this was Cenpuppie's first debate, I have no doubt that things will change as debates continue.

Druid42 clearly wins this debate.

Druid wins this debate. Congratulations to both.

top topics


log in