- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
and can afford it
Should high school be based on ability to pay as well? middle-school? grade-school? Why (not)?
It is not a right.
I'm not saying it is a right; I am saying it is a good investment.
Obama has proved that a Liberal Socialized agenda never grows an economy.
The economy is growing.
Why would you consider that article more than just the drivel of a rantard?
Do you think those proud progressives would agree that it's a "pretty good description of their ideology"? For instance, would they say their goal is "the collapse of capitalism and the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution"?
And since the article didn't answer, I'll ask again:
What criteria should one use to tell the difference?
The tax cut you refer to is the one Bush created and Obama just allowed it to keep going.
Regardless, Obama supported it and signed the bill making it permanent (counter to your prejudice). Moreover, there were tax cuts in the stimulus bill I referenced which were not extensions of prior cuts, so your argument would not apply there.
There is never a tax cut for home owners in Blue states.
Never? Being hyperbolic doesn't help your argument - it actually makes it more easily proven false. Just had to google - democrat proposed property tax cut - and boom, first hit (only a week old):
Then Obama forced through the biggest tax increase on the middle class in our history with Obamacare.
You've been misled by people propagandizing statistics that say what they want and not relevant or meaningful ones.
Democrats and Republicans agree that we should avoid waste, fraud, abuse, etc. but I never have a problem with paying my taxes because I always think - how much do I owe a soldier that just died? - then it seems a mere pittance.
If you think America is great, what do you think is a fair price for that greatness? Or, do you think that such a country occurs freely/naturally?
And for you "should be able to" means forced to go?
"They want all our children to go to College regardless if they are College material" is not the same as "every child should be able to go to college".
I gave you half-a-dozen links showing Obama supporting vocational training, and mentioned LBJ's Job Corps - there are additional statements and actions by Clinton (ref) and other Democrats. Facts do not support your version of reality.
They want all our children to go to College regardless if they are College material.
Silliness. Obama continually advocates for (and has put money towards) vocational training (ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, etc.), and Democrats created Job Corps as one of LBJ's Great Society programs.
Do you ever tire of being so far afield from reality?
I assume you can already discern this, but just in case. The main point of disagreement between you and GN is the use of "misinformation" and "misunderstanding" and "I know this to be incorrect" rather than just different. It is certainly not a known fact that big government is never reasonable - you just have certain opinions about when big government is too big.
If you truly want to help the Middle class, give them all a tax cut
They did exactly that. There were 25 tax cuts in the stimulus (ref), and Obama pushed for and signed the bill that made tax-cuts for the middle class permanent (the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012). ref
That was an excellent analysis on the poor.
I think you are actually referring to the Heritage link that Daver posted.
Just about every person can afford at least 40 dollars a month to contribute to their medical needs a month.
A) About half of all enrollees in Medicaid are children - ref
B) Even if they could, that wouldn't necessarily mean that they should - it may be far more efficient to means test up front and periodically audit than to setup a system to allow 50 million small monthly payments and then track and enforce penalties for non-payment, etc. And, what should the penalty be anyway - you (or your child, etc.) don't get healthcare?
C) While they certainly overlap, the numbers are a bit skewed in terms of Medicaid recipients since the Heritage population of poor people is not the same as the population of people eligible for Medicaid
D) This does not support the idea that the poor aren't better off (the topic of the debate), if anything it goes against it.
This shows that the biggest recession since the great depression (which was already underway when Obama came into office), has had a negative effect - well, duh...
That is not the question at hand - it is whether it would be better or worse without Democratic programs.
They say that poverty, instead of taking the natural course and raising by 1.7%, fell by more than a third. This includes cutting poverty for the elderly by more than 50% and cutting deep poverty by nearly three-fourths.
They also explain why their statistics are better than the Heritage numbers.
There is a further element of deception in that Republicans repeatedly block implementation of Democratic initiatives (infrastructure plan, minimum wage, progressive taxation, etc.), and then blame Democrats for not being effective enough.
Additionally, from my post to you here (which also went without response):
A) Premiums have increased LESS in the last 5 years than the previous 5 years (or the 5 before that) ref
B) Medical inflation is the lowest in 50 years (at times even lower than overall inflation) ref
C) The average family used to pay about $1000/year because of uncompensated care costs ref
Not all of the good news is 100% attributable to Obamacare, but you certainly can't say the situation is disaterous.
Also, doesn't it benefit you for your neighbor to have health coverage, especially in the age of Ebola, etc.?
Should we also mention that it helped save about 50,000 lives says Fox News
- (please respond over at that debate rather than this one so that arguments relate to the debate topic)
Right, you said that taking some college classes helped you and the company you worked for be more successful. That successfulness likely meant more income for you and revenue for your company therefore increasing federal tax revenue.
How is this a rebuttal again??
Do you understand the statement.... fool me once, shame on you.... fool me twice shame on me.
All Democrats didn't lie to you. You have turned some (perceived) wrong into a prejudice against an entire group.
I will never be fooled by the lies of Democrats again.
You'll just trade it for being fooled by Republicans?
Who knows the true numbers
Me. And you can too with nearly 0 effort. If you believe that the debt is $18 trillion, you are already believing the same people that are publishing the other numbers.
I could care less.
Obviously. So, why are you debating what you don't know and don't care about?
It went up almost double in 6 years with zero percent interest!
Without adjusting (less valid), it went up 70.15% - still not double. Under Reagan it went up 188.8%, how is that not far worse?
If you don't even agree on basic facts, it would behoove noone to move to policy implications. Your preference is just to blindly rant. That's your call, but don't be surprised that people don't take you or your arguments seriously.
I gave you all the numbers and all the references and even the calculator used for adjusting for inflation, and your argument is basically: nu-huh.
Even without adjusting for inflation, he hasn't doubled the debt.
Inauguration day (1/20/2009): 10,626,877,048,913.08
As of yesterday ( 1/14/2015) : 18,081,478,613,745.94
An increase of just over 70% without even adjusting for inflation - still better than Reagan numbers after adjusted. And this doesn't even begin to address the actual policy impacts.
Similarly the Debt/GDP ratio requires no adjusting and is still better this year than 2003, 2004, & 2008.
You should be a Democrat talking head.
And you should be on one of the many Fox News shows that will repeat the same thing over and over (e.g. "Obama has spent more than all other Presidents combined") no matter what the facts are.
If you think the numbers are wrong - put up or shut up. Offer your own numbers or admit to yourself that you really have no idea what you are talking about, and that maybe, just maybe - it is you that has succumed to biased media, etc.
It wasn't free - it was just free to you. It cost money for the classes and your company spent that money in lieu of giving you extra salary, etc. Your company was willing to pay because it was useful to them for you to have that knowledge - at the same time it incurred a risk that you would take that knowledge and go somewhere else.
You keep reinforcing the case for the President's proposal. The demand is there (indicated by your own experience), so companies will pay more for the knowledge - substantiating the claim of ROI to the taxpayer. And, it will be better for business as a whole while being less risky for individual businesses.
Other than the military spending(which Democrats always want to cut), I hae not heard one Democrat bill put forth to seriously cut spending.
Recent Republicans promise low taxes only to pass on the cost to the deficit, recent Democrats favor pay-as-you-go legislation, so people don't think they are getting things for free while passing on the cost plus interest into the future.
Before you believe that any politician will cut spending, ask them what they plan to cut...
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement