CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:18
Arguments:11
Total Votes:35
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Were the 15 million people Obama added to food stamp roles starving in the street before? (11)

Debate Creator

FromWithin(8241) pic



Were the 15 million people Obama added to food stamp roles starving in the street before?

Were the 20 million people Obamacare added to the medicaid roles dying in the streets before?

This is the absurdity of deceptive Liberal Democrat rhetoric. They purposely create greater dependence on tax payers by forcing us to subsidise lower income dependence, even though NO ONE was starving in the streets before, and no one was dying in the streets from lack of emergency medical treatment.

These are the deceptive excuses from the Left. They first steal money from middle class tax payers to create millions more dependents, and then scream that people will be dying in the streets if we take it back.

Democrats know perfectly well how hard it is to take back a free subsidy once people get used to having it. For many, human nature has no problem taking a free subsidy if given, and has no problem becoming Government dependents if allowed.

We are going bankrupt and the adults in the room (Conservatives) are the only ones speaking to the impending collapse.

Democrats use Government dependence as their voting blocks and will never do what's best for our nation.

We MUST start cutting Government spending now and stop swallowing the lies from the Left.
Add New Argument
Ramshutu(227) Banned
1 point

Let's look at hunger:

http://www.worldhunger.org/hunger-in-america-2016-united-states-hunger-poverty-facts/

In 2007; before the biggest recession in 80 years, that led to higher unemployment, stagnant wages and low growth over the entire world, 11.1% of homes were "food insecure": meaning that at some point they didn't have constant and gaurenteed access to food.

In 2011, it jumped to 15%; and has since reduced under Obama to about 12.7%

So were they starving in the street? No: but it's clear that they didn't always have the ability to have food at all times: you seem to forget there's an area between "plenty of food" and "no food".

The purpose of food stamps is to ensure that homes who may not have access to food and adequate nutrition at all times have that access. There has been many people added to food stamps because of higher rates of unemployment and poverty caused by the Great Recession.

We could argue how effective food stamps are at raising minimum levels of nutrition to the poor per unit cost, what waste there is, and whether the system is abused and how much: but that would be a different type of argument, and one that I and most liberals would be happy to have: indeed, it's a conversation that probably needs to happen.

However, it takes a special type of evil to sit at a keyboard and argue that the government should not bother to do anything about adults and children who cannot afford to eat properly because feeding the poor "encourages dependence".

If the government has any role at all, its to protect its citizens and this is one of the most obvious and simple (to every country except America) ways of doing it.

FromWithin(8241) Disputed
0 points

Thanks for admitting that people were NOT STARVING IN THE STREETS.

Food insecure? LOL, that is called any able bodied person who does not work.

We have food banks for people who need food. We have emergency medical treatment for people who need it.

Able bodied people who refuse to work are getting the qulity of life they choose.

Our nation is going banrupt from bleeding heart Liberals who want to buy low income votes with hard working tax payer money.

It is laughable to call people evil who understand that enabling irresponsibility with free sudsidies and no work requirements is insane.

What makes America great is the simple fact that all able bodied Americans are in control of the quality of life we enjoy.

We have safety nets for the others.

Bye

Oceaneer(13) Disputed Banned
1 point

Food insecure? LOL, that is called any able bodied person who does not work.

And you think that's funny? Do you think there are enough jobs to provide every able bodied person with work you fucking dumb piece of shit?

There are 43 million Americans who are living below the poverty threshold. Half of the entire American population is classed as on a poor or low income. There are 2.8 million CHILDREN in America who live on less than two dollars a day.

And your solution is what? To sneer at them and tell them to get jobs?

You are a stupid, obnoxious little cunt without the capacity for intelligent thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PovertyintheUnitedStates

Ramshutu(227) Banned
1 point

As for Medicaid.

Let me ask you a question.

Would you let you or your family go without insurance? Would you forego coverage knowing that the emergency cover you'll get will be fine? Would you want you or your family to go without insurance?

The answer that is either no, or a lie.

Where are the middle class families clamouring to drop their insurance and rely on emergency room care?

There are none.

In fact the biggest complaint about healthcare right now, from people like you, is that healthcare is too expensive to buy, or too expensive to use.

Making both arguments is scizophrenic; you're arguing that we should make healthcare too expensive for a lot of people to afford because healthcare is too expensive for a lot of people to afford.

In reality this boils down to a people like you wanting to pay less for what they have and f everyone else; then trying to convince them that they're not being fed out of healthcare.

This position is mostly nonsensical when you think about it.

I, on the other hand; want the minimal number of people without healthcare as we can. Because I believe not having insurance or healthcare is a bad thing for anyone, and not just to myself.