CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
13 Million more people on food stamps since 2009! So which is it, good economy or failure?
Obama and the Democrats can not have it both ways. Either our economy is pathetic with millions more on food stamps, or it is going good where we should not need more food stamps, forced wage increases and free Colleges.
The sad truth is obvious but the Democrat party could care less. It's all about creating a huge welfare voting block. Obama is the most Liberal president in our history and is why our economy has been on life support his entire term.
What did he do when he becme president. He started out making enemies out of business, telling them they did not build that company, Government did. He forced them to give full time workers health insurance so they obviously transformed to more part time jobs to stay in busness. How did that help our economy grow and what knd of jobs did that attack on our freedoms create?
He raised taxes on Corportions which made sure business would keep looking to move the jobs to other nations with lower taxes.
He's been tryng to massively increase minimum wage which does what for employment? It gets people laid off and creates more part time jobs and creates huge inflation where every product produced will go up in price further hurting the middle class. Tell me how it is right to help one group while hurting another group to pay for it. That's socialism.... redistributing wealth, picking winners and losers. Is that what America started out being? No, our nation is built on individual freedoms, hard work and smaller Government getting out of our private lives.
"Obama and the Democrats can not have it both ways. Either our economy is pathetic with millions more on food stamps, or it is going good where we should not need more food stamps, forced wage increases and free Colleges."
Their (rather poor) argument is that it is starting as a higher-end recovery. That is why they point to things like the stock market, while shying away from the effects it is having on the lower classes. It is indicative of a problem in the way we generally measure economic health.
"The sad truth is obvious but the Democrat party could care less. It's all about creating a huge welfare voting block. Obama is the most Liberal president in our history and is why our economy has been on life support his entire term."
Are you really trying to claim he is more liberal than FDR? Seriously?
"What did he do when he becme president. He started out making enemies out of business, telling them they did not build that company, Government did. He forced them to give full time workers health insurance so they obviously transformed to more part time jobs to stay in busness. How did that help our economy grow and what knd of jobs did that attack on our freedoms create?" No, he did not say that they did not build it. You gain nothing from lying about that quote. He said that they did not build it ALONE, and that is the truth. That being said, the ACA is a horrible, horrible, horrible creation.
"He raised taxes on Corportions which made sure business would keep looking to move the jobs to other nations with lower taxes." And yet our effective corporate tax rate still remains one of the lowest in the Western World. Better education would serve as one of the best motivators to bring them back, but you have already attacked his attempts to improve that.
"He's been tryng to massively increase minimum wage which does what for employment? It gets people laid off and creates more part time jobs and creates huge inflation where every product produced will go up in price further hurting the middle class. Tell me how it is right to help one group while hurting another group to pay for it. That's socialism.... redistributing wealth, picking winners and losers. Is that what America started out being? No, our nation is built on individual freedoms, hard work and smaller Government getting out of our private lives." No, it isn't. Socialism is the government owning the means of production and distribution on a central level. You don't know what Socialism means, so stop using the term.
When will you quit wasting our time talking about the definition of Socialism. What I described is a part of the Socialist ideology. I could care less what other controlling aspects are part of it's definition. Redistribution of wealth is a huge part of Socialism so spare us all PLEASE! Democrats today are all about redistribution of our wealth. They act like it is their money.... It is not! The sickest part is they take our taxes and pander to those who will vote for them. THAT IS CORRUPTION and goes against our Constitution.
What you described is part of MANY ideologies, that is the problem! "You could care less" (which means you do care, by the way) because you don't care about being accurate! Redistribution of wealth is a huge part of SEVERAL political ideologies. Just because you aren't educated in political ideology does not change that.
And out of curiosity, can you point to what part of the Constitution that goes against?
Taxation without representation. Please spare me any complaints about the exact words in the Constitution. The meaning of taxation without representation is clearly defined in the Constitution.
"Taxation without representation. Please spare me any complaints about the exact words in the Constitution. The meaning of taxation without representation is clearly defined in the Constitution."
Yes, it is clearly defined, and seeing as how nobody is being taxed without a representative (I mean come on, there are State Reps, State Senators, Federal Reps, Federal Senators), it is clearly met.
Yes, it is clearly defined, and seeing as how nobody is being taxed without a representative (I mean come on, there are State Reps, State Senators, Federal Reps, Federal Senators), it is clearly met.
Those that you listed work for lobbyists, not the common man. This being the case, people are being taxed without representation.
Big deal, so one has the right to something that doesn't exist. Believing that one as an individual has representation takes more faith than believing that God exists. At least believing that God exists is a believable occurrence.
One does have legal representation, but they generally lack effective representation. That is an important distinction when discussing a constitutional issue. If you want to talk about the need for a constitutional amendment that will regulate campaign finance in order to end legal corruption in our form of representation then by all means, you have my support. But you are intentionally or unintentionally missing the distinction from the other conversation.
It is not me that holds a closed mind and ignores facts in favor of personal agendas. Facts always remain the same, but your lies and innuendos will always sway which ever way the winds blows.
What personal agenda do I hold? I consider campaign finance reform to be one of the most important issues this country faces, and a key aspect of solving almost every other political issue.
Actually, you are talking about the Democrats, which would mean you are talking about differing forms of liberalism.
Hence the problem. You don't even know what ideology you are talking about, which leads to issues for anyone who tries to have a conversation with you about the actual issue.
Are you skimming over his arguments and giving knee-jerk responses, or are you just plain stupid? It's couldn't. This is why I said that your rants make me physically cringe. Your remark doesn't even qualify as a dispute to his argument, in fact it would've been better if you had said nothing at all.
You are arguing nonsense. Its perfectly clear that socialist concepts are behind the redistribution of wealth. Call it what it is and understand its meaning.
Except they aren't, Daver, that's your problem. There are a LOT of concepts of redistribution of wealth that are not socialist, including those employed within this country.
Understand what it is, then call it what it is, instead of calling it a term you, and others on the right, use to stifle a healthy debate.
Our president has stated repeatedly that he wants to tax the haves and redistribute it to the have nots. He uses the term "redistribution of wealth" when he talks about this. Pretending to deny where this idea in his head comes from is ridiculous. We all know its a socialistic concept meant to remedy outcomes.
No, we do not "all know" that a concept originating from Classical Conservatism and extending through Modern Liberalism is unique only to socialism. Some of us actually care about political ideologies, and don't boil everything down to pointlessly shallow partisan rhetoric.
That's cute. Let's have a lesson on converse statements, shall we?
I never said that gov't redistribution of wealth isn't the result the result of certain socialistic ideals and socialistic concepts, but that socialism does not necessitate gov't redistribution of wealth.
Really? If I wanted to entertain his insane ramblings in the description, it wouldn't be a reply to his argument, it would be a response to the topic itself. I'm only addressing FromWithin's general attitude and a few misconceptions, I don't have to take a side to participate in a debate, especially not in this kind of debate.
Here is your first comment on this debate. Directed to fromwithin.
Are you skimming over his arguments and giving knee-jerk responses, or are you just plain stupid? It's couldn't. This is why I said that your rants make me physically cringe. Your remark doesn't even qualify as a dispute to his argument, in fact it would've been better if you had said nothing at all.
While his attitude and demeanor clearly suck most of the time, you jumped into his debate to call him stupid. Hmmmm
Here is your first comment on this debate. Directed to fromwithin.
Is this really hard to grasp?
Fine, I'll explain it differently. Yes, that was my first comment. No, it was not a response to his claims regarding Obama in the description, it was a response to a particular comment that he made in the debate, I didn't plan on making an additional argument as to whether or not Obama is a socialist, nor do I have to.
While his attitude and demeanor clearly suck most of the time, you jumped into his debate to call him stupid. Hmmmm
The question asked in the post, points to an apparent contradiction in Obama's claim that the economy has improved, yet the number of people on SNAP has increased sharply to, and remains at, all time highs.
Please indicate whether or not you see this contradiction.
According to how economic growth is measured, the economy has improved. I have not read an article from any source that contradicts this statement.
However, an economy with a drastic increase in the number of people receiving SNAP assistance should not be considered a success. Not in my book.
Assuming SNAP eligibility rules have not changed in the passed few years, it tells me that while there is more economic activity, it is not benefiting the people who receive SNAP. Also of note... over 50% of SNAP recipients are either under 18 or older than 60, and 38% have income of some sort.
I addressed the contradiction, as it is quite simply for an economy to recover while certain groups within an economy to get worse. Is the economy as a whole better than it was during the semi-collapse? Of course. In that sense, it has improved.
Hogwash, every time our economy came out of recession in the past, we did not create 13 million more people joining the welfare roles. You just keep proving my points, Liberals REFUSE to ever admit the obvious. Liberalism, Socialistic ideologies are a complete failure and will always be so. You can not truly grow an economy on the backs of the working man's paycheck. Sure you can create minimum wage jobs by taxing people to death. That does nothing to create middle class jobs.
First, I am not a liberal. Second, I did not "admit" anything one way or another. Third, it is a HUGE problem, and the "Obama Recovery" is a complete joke.
Why are you so against having a legitimate conversation? You didn't even know that I agreed with you, you just assumed that because I was on the left, and happened to understand that "nuance" is a thing, that meant you should yell at me.
That being said, the ACA is a horrible, horrible, horrible creation.
Okay, I can see disliking it, but how is it that bad?
No, it isn't. Socialism is the government owning the means of production and distribution on a central level. You don't know what Socialism means, so stop using the term.
Yeah, not necessarily. It literally means "socially" owned wealth, or wealth owned by the community. It can be through the gov't, but the name doesn't explicitly state that.
EDIT: Removed the "not". I figured that "disliking" was more accurate than "not liking", but I forgot to fix it.
The name doesn't explicitly state that, but political ideologies are not simply literal definitions based on the roots of the word.
And the government mandating people purchase health insurance, a horribly for-profit service, without including a public-option is, in my opinion, rather unethical and poorly done.
The name doesn't explicitly state that, but political ideologies are not simply literal definitions based on the roots of the word.
In this case, it does. Have you heard of anarcho-syndicalism?
And the government mandating people purchase health insurance, a horribly for-profit service, without including a public-option is, in my opinion, rather unethical and poorly done.
Heath insurance companies are only making a few percent profit margin annually, and citizens are only forced to have coverage because insurers aren't really allowed to deny coverage. When they acquire a surplus, it essentially gets saved back into the federal reserve (since every bank is a part of it). A significant amount of their dole comes from medicaid (mostly people who simply cannot afford coverage) and medicare (upper limits of coverage taken care of by gov't). The health insurance companies aren't really all that glamorous, and they're inextricably tied to our gov't.
Sure, privately owned financial institutions tend to have a fair amount of corruption, but would a strictly public model be much different? That being said, what makes forcing citizens to buy coverage unethical?
I don't like Obama, but come on. The rate of increase of food stamp recipients has been more or less steady since 2001.
Literally, if you pull up a graph such as this one And draw a line from the 2001 datapoint to the latest datapoint, almost every year falls almost precisely on that line, with a few outliers below or above the line.
This isn't "good economy" in terms of making things better, or "failure" in terms of making things worse. This is a continuation of the status quo.
Check out those charts again with the criteria I described- don't just eyeball it.
The 'sharp increase' you point out (2008-2011 data points) is not as sharp as it appears when related to the overall trend. This creates 3 data points that are slightly below the plot: 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and to a much lesser extent 2010-2011. 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 the growth rate is below average, generating data points above the plot again. The overall growth rate from 2008 to 2013 is only slightly steeper than 2001 to 2008, and only because of those few outliers, one of which (2008-2009) could not possibly be attributed to Obama for obvious reasons. 2011-2013 represents the lowest growth rate since growth last began in 2001 as well.
Are you seriously contending that SNAP ain't up big time.
No, not at all. Have you read my posts? I'm not arguing about the total number of people on SNAP, I'm talking about the rate of increase.
I'm not contending that the total isn't up- I'm contending that the conclusion the OP is attempting to draw is not supported by the data, because the data fails to show a persistent increase that can be attributed to Obama in the way the OP contends- merely a brief spike in the rate that declined.
It has had a relatively steady growth rate since 2001 that sped up briefly and then slowed way back down. The increased growth began before Obama took office, and the growth rate has recently slowed significantly.
The statistics aren't wrong- just your interpretation of them.
"I don't like Obama, but I'm one of the low end voters who voted for him" because I like getting charity from tax payers. That pretty much sums up most of the Democrat party.
No, you aren't. Just because you vote for a party does not mean you support the parties entire platform, and "late term abortions for any reason" isn't even a part of the Democratic Platform.
I have voted for Democrats on a few occasions, in fact. I'll say that it's rare for me to do so, and that I don't believe any I've voted for were running for a position where they could possibly influence any kind of policy re: late term abortion, but if you say so.
If you vote a Republican in for a city council position, are you supporting illegal aggressive wars that cause more problems than they solve?
Your entire premise is a lie... what a shock! Democrats in Congress supported every war we have gotten into. They have actually started just as many themselves. The hypocrites just lie about that fact if the war goes badly and then they say they were against it.
If you could ever look at life and see what is happening with Obama's weakness, you might learn something. WEAKNESS CAUSES MORE WARS! Do you think Putin would be in the Ukrane if Bush were still President? Where did ISIS all of a sudden pop up? Why is the middle East in such turmoil with war after war popping up.
Republicans are no more war mongers than are Democrats but keep spewing lies.
lol, he actually believes that the others that aren't part of the "most" that are the rich environmentalists who push their degenerate agenda, because, after all, it's the environmentalist, and not the petrol industry's agenda that is raking in the big bucks.
Are you trying to compare a Government taking our freedoms to buy guns and not buy obamacare, to laws dealing with people who take other's lives? You think laws protecting innocent life is controlling people's lives. You can not be that stupid can you? You are comparing laws protecting our lives from killers, to laws taking our freedoms to buy guns and not buy Obamacare? WOW!
This is why correlations are imagined associations. Stick to verifiable cause and effect and you nearly always have the correct association between events.
