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.
I agree with this! Everything should be conservative. For example, we are not only the people who use all of life and non-life resources present today. We need to keep them stay long life for our next generation. Keep a beautiful world!
If nothing was ever done for the first time, we would still be living in caves, throwing rocks at the moon, and urinating all around the boundaries of our territory.
And if we constitute that quote as "nothing should be done, as opposed to all the other times when something was done," we'd still all be humped.
Don't fall for the vicitmization lines running rampant in Conservative circles. Show me where anyone accused conservatives of being racist.
Here's what happens. Rush, Faux, Hannity, Beck, etc. set up the strawman "they're saying we're racist" then whenever there is a disagreement on anything from a Supreme Court nomination to Healthcare (no, it doesn't even have to make sense) they say, "look at our strawman, they're saying we're racist"
And you guys get all butt-hurt over how all liberals think you're racist and you get this us-against-them mindset.
Meanwhile, no one thinks Conservatives are really any more racist inherently.
1. saying one conservative is or isn't a racist doesn't = conservatives are racist.
2. Gerafolo is an actress, not a politician, journalist, or tv talking head. I have no idea or do I or you care what she thinks of anyone.
3. Give me a link to one place Olbermann has ever said all Conservatives are racist. It doesn't exist, and all evidence has shown, while he disagrees with nearly every issue (at least his writers do) he has never made an accusation encompasing all conservatives.
Again, it's a strawman set up by the right, and only seen by those on the right who regularly watch or listen to right-wing talk.
Actually, the Middle Class are more hurt by Liberals than Conservatives. National Healthcare will force them to get rid of their Private Healthcare since they can't afford both. Higher taxes ALWAYS hurt the Middle Class the most. Higher Minimum wage increases prices which hurt the Middle Class the most since they end up having to pay more without getting payed more.
Since Conservatives are against National Healthcare, against higher taxes and against the increase in minimum wage, they are actually helping the Middle Class more than Liberals are.
1. there is nothing in any proposed bill which would force anyone to get rid of their private insurance. That is a lie perpetrated by the healthcare industry whose profits have risen over 400% and who have had record gains while almost every other aspect of american business is struggling. They are literally spending millions a day to try to convince people like yourself that they will somehow magically lose the insurance they have now.
Meanwhile, a public option will do 2 things force competitors in the private sector to provide better service, and no longer gouge patients, and drop patients when they get too "expensive." It will also give people like myself who are self-employed, and small businesses, an affordable option (private insurance for myself would cost between 500 and 1000 a mo, that's almost as much as I pay for rent.)
2. Liberals have not proposed raising taxes on the middle class at all. And programs funded completely by the bailouts already passed (not new spending like certain cable news networks want you to think) like cars for clunkers has significantly risen production of cars, which employs middle class americans, and puts americans in cars that will save them money on gas, and means less money going overseas. And who has been consistantly against continued funding of this program, based on money, which is already earmarked for one program or another anyway? And they do this by saying "they need to raise taxes to do it." Fact is, much of the right wing is rooting for failure, and using the old "tax" standby to trick the public. Show me when the last time was a liberal raised taxes on the middle class. It was well before either of us were born.
3. Raising minimum wage has never been shown to raise prices. Prices are based on competition where competition exists. Meanwhile, a large number of people making more money = more money to spend on stuff people make. There has to be a minimum wage, and it has to be a livable wage, otherwise you have situations similar to before there were any labor laws, when a company would own the store, and all the homes, and pay it's workers a little less than it costs to live, ensuring what amounted to slave labor for generations and generations. We've seen through history, as workers have gained more rights, the economy and standard of living has increased. We're living a real life example of this, and there are literally no examples in history where less worker rights in any way has hurt the economy.
Just saying, you're painfully misinformed on all these points.
1. the point of the bill is that National Healthcare HAS to be payed for. Middle Class people can't afford both, causing them to have to drop private insurance.
2. The only way most of these programs are possible is to raise taxes on the Middle Class. No one can ever guarantee tax breaks when they bring new programs. Plus, the Liberals raised taxes on cigarettes, which is bought MAINLY by lower and middle class people. Then there's these wants to tax foods that they consider unhealthy, which is also mainly bought by lower and middle class people. That, to me, is a major attack on the Middle Class (not intentional, but obvious).
3. And when businesses are forced to pay their employees more, they compensate by increasing their prices. That is standard economics. Competition has more to do with benefits of purchase, which does include price.
and look at corporations like Wal-Mart. They pay their employees minimum wage with no benefits and they offer the lowest prices of the land. Then other places that pay their employees more and do offer benefits have higher prices. The cost of business effects the cost of goods and services.
1. You are right, everything at some point has to be paid for.
And with the current system, Americans are paying more per person for healthcare than any other nation in the world. This is all Americans, but especially those in the middle class and who now have healthcare. And in spite of the massive amount we are paying for healthcare, our life expectancy and infant mortality rate is the worst of every single industrialized nation. This while health insurance industry here is richer than about half of the industrialized nations in the world. We pay them more for worse service.
That people "can't afford both and so would drop private insurance" is a non-issue. The majority of Americans get their insurance through their work, and so their work would decide which was cheaper for them, and the workers would have to pay less for whichever was cheaper. Private insurance, if it is so much more efficient than the government, should have no problem offering the service needed for a lower price right?
It's been repeated over and over, that no plan being offered forces anyone to get rid of their private insurance, it offers a choice, that is all. No one who doesn't have governement healthcare is going to get a bill in the mail for government healthcare. That isn't going to happen.
Private insurance funding these misinformation campaigns are not the least bit concerned about health obviously, judging from our ranking in the world where health is concerned. And judging from the fact that we pay more per person for healthcare, they obviously don't care about saving us money either.
So why defend them? Don't fall for their misinformation. Every real life example of government healthcare in the world, including ones here like the VA, work better than private insurance.
2. The cigarette and unhealthy food tax I will give to you. It's not productive, people don't quit smoking or being fat for that reason, and it does target the middle and lower classes. I was more thinking along the lines of income tax, but okay. I don't know what those taxes go to. If they go in a pot, I'm against it, if they are earmarked specifically for the healthcare of people who are overweight and have emphazima or whatever, then it may be a good idea, but I don't know enough about it.
By that logic though, you could kind of say yaht taxes unfairly target the rich, but I get your point.
3. There are a lot of ways to compensate for increased wages of workers, it does not necessarily have to be the price of the product sold. Some businesses would do this by making their busniness model more efficient, getting better advertising, curbing bonuses, finding new sources to buy from. What would happen is, the ones who counter it by raising prices of products, would lose ground to those who counter it by other means. The only kind of business that a responsible wage increase would kill is a bad business, or a monopoly. It would certainly hurt a monopoly, which is actually a good thing, maybe some competition would come of it.
Ex, Wal-Mart.
SF doesn't have a Wal-Mart, they pay a lot more for everything.
SF has a higher standard of living, less unemployment, higher mean income than Detroit.
Detroit has a bunch of Wal-Mart's
Forcing a company to pay higher wages, or not allowing it to exist if it refuses, has not brought SF to its knees.
I live in LV, there's a Wal-Mart and a Target right down the street. Target is more expensive, but nicer, I'd say they get about the same amount of business just from looking at how many people are there.
Target has not failed for paying its employees more.
The idea that a business fails when it has to pay more is false. It depends how much more, and dozens of other factors.
I don't think every person should be paid $20 an hour, or even $15. But there is a minimum livable income, and it is much higer than the current $5.25. I think it would be quite helpful for the nation to find what that is, and raise it - less need for other government programs like food stamps etc.
1. What you're talking about we already, sort of, have. Medicaid is given to the poor and we pay for it. National Healthcare is being created to help the poor even more... give them everyday medical treatment. If National Healthcare is not forced upon us and we don't NEED to pay taxes for it, than it won't be a problem. Unfortunately, that's where it's most likely headed.
2. k
3. When you say SF... do you mean San Francisco? Because San Fran has a shit load of homeless.
Wal-Mart hires people who can't get hired anywhere else. This is mainly why Wal-Mart thrives in places with many criminals and poor people. The felons, handicapped, and immigrants can get a job there and the poor can afford their products.
Target doesn't fail because, as you said, their shit is more expensive.
And I never said a business will fail if it has to pay its employees more; all I said was that the prices will go up and the ones who get screwed the most are the Middle Class.
Food Stamps are handed out to almost anyone. There's hardly a standard for those kind of programs. If we made it more efficient, we would be able to weed out the weak from the needy.
And the problem is the programs get expanded as a cheep way for states to put some of their healthcare costs onto the feds, the growing price of Rx drugs, and of course the current economy.
Mainly though, no one pays into it, it's volunteer, the cost being split between state, fed, and the healtchare industry. The difference between medicaid and optional gov healthcare, is people who wanted gov healthcare would pay into it. Unlike Medicaid which is basically a charity, and it's either under funded or it isn't. We can assume, since the health care industry has been able to increase it's profits over 400% over the last few years, and it's a trillion dollar industry,
That a non-profit gov program that people actually pay into would have no problem with funding.
And it's a no-lose situation anyway as, if private insurance can beat the prices, people just wont get gov insurance, they'll get private insurance. No bubbles no troubles, but the consumer is better off because private insurance was forced to actually cover who it says it covers, not drop patience because they get too expensive, and bring its prices to something affordable. I mean, I'm not sure how the taxes work exactly as far as funding this program, but, everything I've heard is a modest increase for the top 2%. Which is included already in the tax plan Obama put forth on the campaign, it's not in addition to what he talked about when campaigning. The rest of the funding would come from people who pay into the system and get that kind of healtcare,
ie, if you make less than 200k a year, and don't want gov. healthcare, you don't pay for gov. healthcare.
I mean, we can guess whether gov can make it work, or if they'll mess it up all we want, fact is we won't know until it's tried. But the two inescapable facts of the matter are.
A. Our current system doesn't work, infact, it's the worst in the industrial world.
B. Every country with a public option is doing great.
Seems to me it's at least worth a try given those two facts.
3. Yeah, San Francisco. And they have a lot of homeless because they have nice weather and a beach. Every place with nice weather and a beach has a lot of homeless, that's where they congregate unless they have a good program to hide them or kick them out.
I've been to SF quite a bit, those homeless people you're talking about couldn't get a job at Wal-Mart even if there was one there, they're crazy people. No one will hire them. Maybe 1 in a hundred is a guy down on his luck, the rest are completely insane.
My point was that, paying higher wages does not mean that business goes under. The classic arguement is that raising the minimum wage even a couple bucks would criple business. I believe this is demonstratably not true by my example of Target, who sells the exact same stuff as Wal-Mart almost, and who seems to do okay. Of course, the people who shop there pay a little more,
but I think you'll find that, someone working 40 hours/ week, who then makes an extra say 80 dollars a week, is not going to lose that entire 80 dollars because they have to pay a little more money at Wal-Mart, or any other place that has to raise their minimum wage, and decides to raise their prices as a result. I think you would find they spend a little more, but still have more money in their pocket at the end of the week.
Here's the minimum requirement for foodstamps, there are other more singent rules, but these are the minimum requirements:
Generally, your household cannot have more than $2,000 in resources. But, if your household includes a person age 60 or older or who is disabled, the limit is $3,000. Resources of people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are not counted for food stamp purposes. Resources include cash, bank accounts and other property.
Not all the things you own count. For example, your home and the land it is on do not count for food stamp eligibility. A car or truck counts differently depending on how it is used. Most states now use TANF rules in place of food stamp vehicle rules if the TANF rules are more beneficial to the food stamp household.
Most households also must meet an income limit. Certain things do not count as income and can be subtracted from your income. Your household may qualify for other income exclusions if it includes a person age 60 or older or disabled. The income limits vary by household size and may change each year.
So, it's actually not that easy, though it seems it would be quite simple to cheat on, and I'm sure a lot of people do, maybe someone should do something about that :/
But it would seem this program would be one that less people would qualify for if they made just a couple bucks more. At least if they didn't cheat.
1. Well, i already have a problem with the rich paying for the poor, but that isn't my main concern at the moment. I can only hope that I and my family won't get screwed over for this. I feel it inevitable, and I believe as humans we will adapt. I just feel there are other, more efficient ways out there that we're not trying.
and A. People come here for miracle treatments.
B. Cuba and Canada? Please... Here's Canada "take a number, wait 5 weeks, kthnxbye." Here's Cuba "Shit in this corner, sleep in the other, kthnxbye". I like America's system way more; I've been doing just fine under it. But okay.
2. Yeah; most people do cheat. Worst of all, no one seems to give a fuck. Here's how Foodstamps can be fixed. You can only apply for them if you're:
A. A student
B. Homeless
C. Severely Handicapped
Problem solved.
And I never brought forward the argument that minimum wage cripples businesses. As I said before, it increases prices. And either way on the homeless, Wal-Mart is STILL a last resort for people who need jobs.
When minimum wage goes up, the Middle Class's wage doesn't. So they pay more without getting payed more. Which is why they're screwed over the most.
It's inaccurate because Conservatives believe in conserving certain things. In this day and age, it's conserving the culture of America (Constitution, Capitalism, tradition, etc.).
A belief that nothing should be done for the first time is more like a Nihilistic, Solipsistic, pessimistic, self-destructive Anarchist.
Lincoln may have been a registered Republican but he was a Progressive. Before 1965 it was the Republican party with the progressive agenda not the Democratic that is all I have to say.
