CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:50
Arguments:64
Total Votes:51
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 13 Million more people on food stamps since 2009! So which is it, good economy or failure? (44)

Debate Creator

FromWithin(8239) pic



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.

Add New Argument

"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.

FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

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.

2 points

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?

daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

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.

2 points

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.

1 point

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.

Stickers(1037) Clarified
1 point

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.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

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.

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.

daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

Check out those charts again. The sharp increase is 2008 - 2013 is the "Obama jump". Hmmmm

1 point

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.

FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

"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.

thousandin1(1931) Clarified
4 points

Oh, I didn't vote for him either, but it's not like the facts ever mattered for any of your arguments anyway :)

1 point

Hilarious, considering you have also characterized Democrats as elitists trying to tell other people how to think. Can you make up your mind?

1 point

I've been looking at correlations and presidents are kicked out on peaks and troughs of food stamp dependency. Judging by this:

Failures: George H W Bush, George W Bush, Obama

Successes: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton.

This is just on the data, which is linked: http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Yearly.jpg

We're having the same problem in the UK and we have a Conservative government, though.

Amarel(5139) Clarified
1 point

What do you mean by "kicked out"? George Jr had two terms.

Elvira(3445) Clarified
1 point

Kicked out when food stamp usage meats a trough or a peak.