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.
The more the state does for the citizens, the more government bureaucracies are required to do the task and the more money the citizens need to pay in taxes in order to support such bureaucracies. These bureaucracies are not efficient and they are normally designed to help a specific group in society and sometimes ends up hurting another group.
Obama is not reducing the size of government bureaucracies. Forget about eliminating them. And that's what I hate about all presidents.
Yes it's inefficient, but there are some problems that only government can address. For example: global warming, medical care and education for the poor, national defense, law enforcement, social security, etc.
How would you solve these problems? Pixie dust? Ignore them and hope that go away? Most small government "solutions" involve a combination of both.
Global warming....please its still a myth. The globe is always warming and cooling and there is NO positive proof that we are doing it harm. The amount of money and control they want us to throw at it is just plain irresponsible. (ducking my head from all the greenies throwing insults my way)
While it is obvious that there are some who do not have adequate health care who ever said it should be free? Why must we continue to make those that do have health care give up what they have so all of us can have less health care? The founders by and large were strictly against the Federal Government being involved in charity.
The poor already have access to education. They just have to WANT it enough to go get it. My wife was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth. She worked two part time jobs, and joined the Army Reserve to pay for her education. Took her 5 years to graduate but I dint ever recall he asking for a freebie. She got her degree and owed NO money when she was finished. People will only respect what they have earned.
It goes without saying that National Defense MUST be a top priority. Peace comes from strength. It is actually one of the few things that the Constitution specifically assigns to the Federal Government.
Law enforcement is a LOCAL issue. Deal with it there. We should all ck out the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Social Security has never been social nor secure. The system was doomed to fail the moment the government decided to pay benefits to people who never paid in one dime.
It is only a matter of time before the system collapses.
Find a source not funded by big energy, or right talking heads not funded by big energy, that backs up this silly statement. At this point it's akin to arguing evolution is still a myth, and you don't have to be a "greenie," to see that.
Why must we continue to make those that do have health care give up what they have so all of us can have less health care?
Every plan proposed has stated very clearly that one would not have to give up what they have if they don't want to... what's so hard to understand about that? You do realize that the U.S. pays more per capita than any country in the world, and in spite of that here's the rankings link
You'll notice we are behind several 3rd world countries. And you'll also notice that almost every country with better health care than us, who incidently also pay less per person, has Universal Healthcare.
The poor already have access to education. They just have to WANT it enough to go get it
Are you saying poor people don't want an education? Or that poor people are dumb? I don't get your point. The point you were responding to was simply that government gaurantees education up to the 12th grade. Are you saying they shouldn't? Here are the top 5 education systems in order:
Finland
China
UK
Japan
US
All of whose governments guarantee education for everyone including the poor. Of course you have wonderful samples where government does not provide this service, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, wow, that must be great to not have the government all up in there business huh?
Peace comes from strength.
Yeah, because you know how Switzerland is all not peaceful and junk. Anyway, there's a difference between national defense, and running around the world starting wars with random dictators that have nothing to do with us. Outside of that I would agree with you if only I did not have the sneaking suspicion you've never heard the addage "walk softly and carry a big stick."
Law enforcement is a LOCAL issue. Deal with it there. We should all ck out the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Ignoring that the 10th Amendment in no way takes away any right of the national government to enforce the law, are you saying we should do away with the FBI, CIA, DOD, etc? You have some very odd ideas that you do not back up with any alternate solutions, do you know that?
Social Security has never been social nor secure. Actually it's extraordinarily secure, checks come on time and for the right amount like every single month, I wish a third of my clients were half as "secure."
Next, every person who receives SS also paid into it, it's part of everyone's taxes.
Finally, without SS, what do you suggest we do with all the people who are too old to support themselves? Throw them on the streets? What's wrong with supporting people who contributed to our society their entire lives in a humane way?
Sweet! A real cut and paste kind of a guy! I like you already!
"...Find a source not funded by big energy, or right talking heads not funded by big energy"
Who do you think funds your source? Think they may be supported by organizations that have something to gain? Hmmmmmmmm?
"....At this point it's akin to arguing evolution is still a myth,"
Certainly Evolution is not a myth...its not a fact either...its a theory. If you disagree with that statement prove to me that evolution is fact. I have time.
"...Every plan proposed has stated very clearly that one would not have to give up what they have if they don't want to... what's so hard to understand about that?
Actually they do not state it plainly in the Bills they state it verbally. Huge difference.
Also whats hard to understand is why so many people actually believe anything that the government says. Do you honestly believe that they will hold to that?
I envy your trust I really do. But after having been lied to for years now and doing my own research...you know that kind that isn't funded by others....I have not found one reason to believe them.
Lets use SS.
Promise: You SS numbers will never be used as identity cards....yeahhh. Right.
Promise: You and your employer will pay in and ONLY you will get back what was paid into the account in your name. You will NOT have to fund others Strike two!
Promise: Your funds will be sacred ( not used for other programs) oops!
Actually there are too many to count on SS alone! Feel free to ck man.
"...Are you saying poor people don't want an education? Or that poor people are dumb?"
Are you trying to put words in my mouth? I said exactly what I meant, no need for you to interpret.
Want to hear some really right wing stuff? Education does not start in school....it does not end in school. It begins after school when you have to face the world, not a professor.
Oh and by the way on Public Education 1-12? The real problem is not government funding in my opinion...its Unions wasting the funding that is available. Another socialistic organization but thats another debate isnt it.
"...Yeah, because you know how Switzerland is all not peaceful and junk"
Wow got me there. We all know what a hero nation Switzerland is. Especially with the NAZI's!
"...Ignoring that the 10th Amendment in no way takes away any right of the national government to enforce the law, "
Now see here you just plain missed MY point and to be honest, I had to go back into the thread to see what I was talking about here!
My argument came from my "opinion" that the federal government should be limited and that there are parts of our lives they have no business interfering in. The 10th was supposed to guarantee that.
"...You have some very odd ideas that you do not back up with any alternate solutions, do you know that?"
My ideas sound "odd" to you because you and I are on absolute opposite sides of the political spectrum...did you know that? How crazy do you think YOU sound to me? :_) But hey I still like you bunches! Ain't it great to live in a society where we can disagree?
At least for now?
"...Actually it's extraordinarily secure, checks come on time and for the right amount like every single month, I wish a third of my clients were half as "secure."
I wish ALL your clients were secure but the truth is there is NO security without opportunity. Free market...not government handouts, are the answer.
Hey man its as easy to print checks as it is money...get my drift?
Remember a day a loooonnnngggg time ago ...you know like last year, when the housing market was great. Money flowed like wine, values alway going up, a man just cold not lose!
Secure ...right? Funny how things that big have a way of hiding until its too late for those who refuse to see. There is NO security in SS. Its in the RED. Its off the books. It has more people drawing than paying. Thats how Ponzi schemes fail.
Are you aware that the Baby Boomer gen is the first in US history that had fewer children than their parents did and they are about to retire in WAVES?
You and I can argue this all day. Time will tell!
"...Finally, without SS, what do you suggest we do with all the people who are too old to support themselves? Throw them on the streets? What's wrong with supporting people who contributed to our society their entire lives in a humane way?
This will SHOCK you...I agree! I just dont believe that is the government responsibility or business to do this...its ours! How about we take responsibly for our own lives instead of having it crammed down our throat! I know much more what my parents...who by the way lives with me and my wife and are totally supported by us...needs well moire than the government does.
I believe that anytime people become dependent on the government, it corrupts both the people and the government. One ends up "controlling" the other and that is just plain wrong. This is how slaves are made.
Personally, I don't like that he seems greedy. The stimulus bill for cripes sake, was ginormous. And I'm pretty appalled that the last goal in the Governments minds is to get this country out of damn debt. It's serious bad role modeling.
Progressives interfered with the economy by passing destructive policies back in the thirties that turned A depression into THE GREAT depression...which by the way kept over 20% of the people in the US out of work for years?
Even FDR admitted that it was NOT the New Deal that "repaired" the economy...it was , in his opinion, the war.
Wouldnt it make sense that if politicians actually knew anything about economies then wouldn't that be the end of depressions?
Obama doesn't know everything about he economy, but he knows a lot. He also has advisors, including the man who should be the head of the federal reserve, helping to aid him in policy making.
You can't condem an entire ideal based on mistakes made 80 years ago. What you can do, is learn from those mistakes, and apply new ideas and logic to new problems.
Keynesian economics is a tried and tested method of fighting against a recession. They're taking a short term hit to get the country out of recession and have a much better chance of paying back that debt.
Without a massive injection of public funding, recession will become depression and you'll find your country being in a much worse position then it currently is. Greed has absolutely nothing to do with.
The one thing I ahte about him is that he has taken over GM and then put a man in charge that knows nothing about cars. That is just one thing. Did I mention that he is a socialist?
One of the major problems here is that many of the people who throw the label of socialist around don't actually understand what socialism is, and instead of making up their own minds about his position on a certain political ideology, they simply repeat tried and tested conservative rhetoric.
People forget that the society we have now is heavily influenced by socialist as well as capitalist ideology.
It's not rhetoric there has always been a pull for more government or less and because we are a democracy we are able to keep the balance of Socialism and Capitalism. In order to survive Socialism needs Capitalism but Capitalism doesn't need Socialism.
a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
an economic system based on state ownership of capital
I just gave you the actual definition of Socialism. Now just plug in the companies and industries. GMC, Cap and Trade all none green technology, the banks, Health Care, Railroads, Social Security. It's a lot of industry that is or was once private but now is or becoming state owned and a lot of it in a quick time. That is Socialism.
Take from haves and give to have nots (spread the wealth..sound familiar? "..from each his ability. To each their need?)
Control of salaries.
Cancel contracts.
ACORN (nuff said)
Nationalization of Industry and Banks
16 Czars (The removal of over-site by Congress. Anyone here ever here of checks and balances?)
I know that past Presidents have done some of the same, I don't argue that...that makes them no better so don't bother with that argument. They were wrong as well and just as guilty.
Its the scale and scope of what he is doing that is so troubling.
In 100 days he has, with the help of Congress, run up more debt than all the previous Presidents COMBINED!! Thats over 200 years of Presidents people.
We could go on for ever here but I think that this is enough to at least make a small point. There is no doubt that Obama is a Socialist at heart, regardless of how bad we in the United States would like to think that we would never go that way here.
BTW He is not the 1st Socialist elected here in the States...just the latest.
He's doing what needs to be done to fix the country. People are suffering in this country, and he understands that he can't just let that happen. That doesn't sound like a socialist to me, that sounds like a hero.
You know what? I take back all the good things I said about you.
Sarcasm and name calling...not helpful, and most certainly unbecoming of you.
Now! To your argument...it almost made sense to me until I remembered that its NOT THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY!
The Government did not provide the gun...the PEOPLE did. And in your example, the PEOPLE provide that willingly as it is almost universally recognized that there is a need for police.
HOWEVER its obviously not universally recognized by the PEOPLE that we should surrender even more of our property to provide for others in a way we are disagree with and against our will. This is witnessed by the huge resistance to the Lefts socialistic ways.
AGAINST OUR WILL is the operative phrase here. I am glad to help others in my own way, for my own reasons, and according to my assets. But to be FORCED to support others in a way I fervently disagree with and believe is actually HARMFUL to the ones supposedly being helped, is wrong.
You will be glad to know that based on your "comments" I have looked at the thread again I realized that I did not really make my argument correctly. So I am going to add this addendum.
It should have read....A hero saves people by leading the "land" in a common goal. A socialist forces it from the "land" against its will.
There is no way to argue that the "land" is NOT in agreement on these issues.
Nothing really well I'm from Aus so i don't really get the news about obama but from what i have heard it sounds like he is a good prime-inister and a good person.
That is not true. He is turning the US into a socialist state as well as ruining it for the future generations who will be paying for the trillion dollars he is using to help the economy that needs less taxes and less government intervention.
I am not a big fan of any change that he is trying to make in our healthcare system. For as long as I could remember, I've found human anatomy and physiology to be the most interesting topics out there and I love almost everything biology. I loved them all so much that my plan for life was to go into medicine and hopefully become a doctor. The problem is that medical school and 4 years of undergrad college would easily run me upwards of $300,000 in student loans! I've always seen this as worth it because doctors are supposed to make a lot of money, which would pay this off and help them to raise families, etc. Note: I am not a very greedy person. But his healthcare reforms would make being a doctor out of the question!
His reforms would require that all patients be seen, even if they don't have insurance. The patients without insurance would thus cause physicians to take a hit because who else would pay for that? This would mean that doctors would have to deal with so many patients that they are not even getting paid for. I see this as a waste of time, no offense, because being a physician and going to college for 8 difficult years means this man or woman deserves to get paid. So in a sense, Obama's policies have caused me to think twice about my life choices and reevaluate my dream. I think any president that does this to me, in reference to any dreams I have, is a bad president by my book. Say what you will about loving him, but I just can't stand him.
The fact that you're against universal healthcare because you want to make lots of money as a doctor is quite possibly the most selfish thing I've ever heard, not to mention totally and utterly wrong. NHS doctors in the UK (a socialist healthcare system which is ranked 19 places above the US healthcare system [source]) are some of the most well paid people in the country, earning an average wage of £110,000 ($180,000) per year [source], with senior consultants being able to earn £180,000 ($290,000) [source]. So, essentially, the whole premise of the argument made here is false. But, you know, don't let facts get in the way of your unsubstantiated two minute hate.
"His reforms would require that all patients be seen, even if they don't have insurance. The patients without insurance would thus cause physicians to take a hit because who else would pay for that?"
The "State" is comprised of the Citizens of the United States. Government has no ability to pay anything that it does not first TAKE from the Citizens as it is a completely non productive entity.
All purchases made by the "State" are third party in nature. That is they are purchases made with money that does not belong to them on items and services they will not use and therefore very inefficient.
I was simply arguing against the fact that physicians won't be paid for treating patients under a socialist healthcare system, which is obviously false. Please refer to the sources supplied to back that up. Regardless of whether the money is paid indrectly through the state, or directly through healthcare insurance, the physicians will still be paid extremely well for their treatment.
Please read what people are saying before entering into an irrelevant tyraid.
You clearly misread the argument. I want to become a doctor to save lives but I also realize that I need money to live a comfortable life. I will NOT go to college for 8 years and rack up $300,000+ in student loans to give out free medicine. If I become a doctor I need the money to pay off loans and to raise the family I hope to have. So don't give me that sh*t.
It is clearly you who is misreading the argument. I showed evidence to refute your claim that, as a doctor, you would paid less under a socialist healthcare system. One of my sources showed that a consultant physician under a socalist UK healthcare system can earn almost $300,000 in a single year. Your argument that a socialist healthcare system will cause doctors to be paid less is, therefore, shown to be false.
Feel free to show some evidence to back up your claim that you would be paid less, but I doubt you can.
Well obviously I can't show evidence of something that has not happened yet. You're referring to England, but we don't know what will happen in America. I live very close to a poor community full of immigrants without insurance or any money. I'm sure, if there is universal health care, that any doctor near them will be swamped with low income cases and will not be making as much money as he or she should.
You're clearly confused. A hospital will charge the same and the doctor will be paid the same amount whether the patient has insurance or is being treated under socialised healthcare. The only difference is who pays the fee; the insurer or the state.
But if it's funded by the government, the money might not always be there. There are always shortages, but at least with independent insurers, there are multiple companies so not all insurance companies will be in a shortage at once. Governments eventually feel the burden of this universal health care and some of them even try to head a little bit away from it to relieve some of the stress that is caused from it being so expensive to maintain.
Besides this, universal health care has problems of its own, even in a world with limitless expense. Many countries have problems with transplants, like in Sweden, where somebody could wait as long as 25 weeks for a heart surgery, even a fatal case, and up to a year for a hip replacement. Many of these patients die before receiving the medical attention they need.
It's clear you are determined to be against Universal Healthcare, regardless of how many benefits it has.
Maybe you didn't bother checking the sources provided, or maybe it's simply a knee jerk reaction.
You mention that we don't know that it would work the same in the US as it would in countries like the UK or France, and okay, that's a legitimate point.
But we are currently ranked 37th in the world in health care, just behind Dominica and Costa Rica. In spite of our poor ranking, we currently pay more per capita than any other country. Does this make sense to you?
1. Today healthcare is based on a profit model, this is fine for selling soda, what happens when it's your health as we've seen, is instead of prevention, healthcare focuses on treatment, which costs more.
2. Instead of people taking care of a "small problem" right away, they wait because they don't want their premiums to go up or they just don't have insurance at all, and it sometimes becomes something life threatening, which costs much more.
3. Moving away from life threatning situations; if you walk into a doctor office today, and tell them you just feel tired all the time, first thing they will do is test for mono, which like 1% of the population has. That will come back negative. Then they will test you for low testosterone. Which is curable with some veggies and excercise, but whatever, it will either come back negative, or they'll give you a ridiculously expensive pill. Pretend it comes back negative. What they will do is either say nothings wrong with you and tell you to get some sleep, or if you happen to have a particularly cool doctor, he'll say "I didn't say this, but about 60% of the population is iron deficient, try vitamins and see if you feel better in a couple weeks."
Because it's a profit based, and treatment based system. And doctors today aren't allowed to tell you to try a vitamin that costs like a penny each.
You see how a profit based health system is not a good idea?
You're worried about how much a doctor would make. You do realize that people without insurance are still treated right? Two things happen, doctors volunteer at "free clinics" which actually cost like a hundred bucks, but this is time they don't get paid for, or tax payers pick up the tab anyway through 1 of dozens of programs.
So what changes with Universal Healthcare?
Doctors are now paid regardless of the financial circumstance of the individual seeing them. This would actually mean more money for doctors not less.
The only people threatened with a bigger bill through this system is the tax payer. But that wouldn't happen either.
Currently most businesses pay a dollar for healthcare for every two dollars of salary. Switching to non profit cuts business expenses to 0 overnight, allowing for better wages and more employees. Next, since profit is no longer the main concern of healthcare, doctors are allowed to prescribe preventive advice, and people can see their doctors a couple times a year, instead of only when they are sick. If a woman catches breast cancer before it spreads, it costs a couple thousand to get rid of. Once it spreads, it costs hundreds of thousands. These kinds of cases are what has made us the number one spender on healthcare, it's not sprained ankles or the flu. If you can get people to see the doctor when they should, the American people save billions. If you make it Universal, more people will see their doctor, business will have far less expenses, doctors will make more money, tax payers will save money, and most important, people will live longer and happier lives.
The only losers are the insurance companies who have been fleecing the American people for years now, so I really don't feel too bad about that, do you?
The problem is that the taxpayers pay doctors 180,000 dollars whether they have patients or not. You should be paid on what you do not what some bureaucrat thinks. This is not the UK, the US has four to five times the population as the UK, thus more people needing healthcare.
"The problem is that the taxpayers pay doctors 180,000 dollars whether they have patients or not."
I'm not entirely sure of the US way of paying doctors, but I'd assume that they are on annual wages, not a pay per customer. If so, then there will be absolutely no difference whether it's universal healthcare or insurance based healthcare. The only difference I can see is whether a person pays through their insurance company, or via the state. You're current arguments indicate that you believe that the healthcare system will have to deal with more people due to socialised healthcare, therefore the wage of doctors (if it were a pay per customer system) would actually increase. Doctors in the US earn a fantastic salary [source]. Do you have some preordained knowledge or whether the state will set doctor wages, or whether or not hospitals will be given certain budgets which include salary.
It seems to me that you're making up problems where problems don't exist purely for the sake of being against universal healthcare. Here's the facts: nearly every single industrialised nation apart from the US has universal healthcare systems. The US is low on the healthcare quality lists. The US ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation. Lots of countries with universal healthcare systems, such as the UK, have higher ranked healthcare systems then the US. The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care. 71% of doctors believe that the current managed care system has caused quality of care to be compromised. These are the people actually involved in the front line of the healthcare system.
Now, I know you seem to hate the word socialism (without seeming to understand why you hate it), so I must tell you that universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is a health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.
So, what exactly are you arguing for? Are you happy that you're an industrialised country spending the most on healthcare whilst also being ranked one of the worst amongst other industralised nations? Are you happy that only people who can afford it get the healthcare they require? Are you happy that the whole system is geared towards profit, rather than patient care? Are you glad that the costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the US when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the US, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s? Do you actually know what the hell you're talking about, or do you simply hear the word "socialised" and outright reject it without actually knowing anything about it?
The evidence points to that fact that not only will you get better healthcare under a universal healthcare system, and pay less for it, but every single person will be entitled to that healthcare. Everyone is a winner. What, honestly, is the big fucking deal?
"This is not the UK, the US has four to five times the population as the UK, thus more people needing healthcare."
That's irrelevant as the size makes all things relative. Bigger population means more people needing healthcare, but also more hospitals, more doctors, more people paying for the healthcare system via taxes, etc, etc. An increase in population means a directly correlated increase in avilable funds for healthcare through taxation. Regardless, the US currently has a medicine and doctor oversupply of 30%, with a proposed universal healthcare demand increase of only 15%.
Do you actually check up the facts, or do you just pull possible issues from your ass without doing the slightest bit of research into them? For christ sake, get over your ridiculous obsession with anything socialised and just realise that the US is crying out for universal healthcare.
In an ideal world, yes it should. But that would be really expensive and we're in too much debt as it is. I don't think the government can fund universal health care, college education, and everything else without collapsing. But I wish it did. :)
I'm just estimating that figure based on a $25,000/year undergrad degree and a $200,000 med school cost. Seems legitimate enough, although I'd probably have even more than that. My undergrad school, with scholarship, is $35,000/year... :|
Don't cut too much military spending. It's necessary. And my sister and her fiancee are both in the Navy right now. I hope to join them by going through the Naval Academy (I had to reapply. I didn't get in this year)
Another thing I really don't like about him is how he's pulling out of Iraq completely. I understand that the Iraqis need to become responsible for themselves and I understand that we don't need such a large army over there, but I still think we need to be there a little bit. Regardless of anything you say, I feel very unsafe with this decision, especially living close to New York, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. (among other big cities). It's only the first place any terrorist would attack. :|
He has yet to remove anyone, what he has said and what he has done, are two completely different things. He may say the best thing is withdrawal, but he has to do anything but deploy more troops.
He is very very successful and has made it to the top. (I don't know the exact history of how he became that successful. But I know that he has.)
Yet he tells people that Government is the only answer. That you can't make it on your own. He doesn't talk about hard work. He focuses on the weak points in america to sell his big government pitch.
Here is where I have an issue with almost all the critics of Obama. Just because the guy wants to slightly increase taxes on the rich, and lower taxes on the working class, means that somehow he is devaluing hard work?
How?
Because he's making it slightly easier to climb the latter? Because he has some empathy for the people who have to work two jobs just so that they can decide whether they want to send their kids to college, pay the rent, or pay health insurance? (True story by the way, the guy chose his kids and couldn't afford insulin). If anything he's making the American dream more accessible...he's making America into exactly what we've all claimed that it is for the last 200 years.
As you said, Obama became successful, and started from almost nothing. He had to work his way up to the top, and did a great job of it. You would think that this would convince him that the system works, but he's smarter then that. He knows that for every one story like his, there are thousands of stories of people who worked equally as hard, but for some reason beyond there own control, couldn't reach the same level of success. He also knows that we can't abandon those people, or right them off as lazy or undeserving of basic human rights.
Tell me one time Obama said "you can't make it on your own" or that "government is the only answer."
What is your fear Jake? Doctors will still make more than waiters. The system is still going to be based on capitalism...but capitalism alone doesn't work. No system that puts the vast majority of the wealth in the hands of a small minority of people ever works. When people can't survive they turn to crime and violence. Look at Mexico. Look at almost all of Africa. There nations have vast natural resources, but the people are seeing none of it.
If you don't fix the disparity of wealth, then a society cannot function.
He raises taxes on households that make 250,000 dollars a year or more. People you make that much money usually work there asses off. My mother works 8 to 10 hours every day, and makes less than 100,000 a year and pays 50 percent taxes. The way to stop this economic crisis is by letting people keep their money and use it to stimulate the economy.
"My mother works 8 to 10 hours every day, and makes less than 100,000 a year and pays 50 percent taxes."
A lot of people work far more hours than that and don't make anywhere near that much money. The point is totally irrelevant. You can't conclude that the harder you work the more money you make. That's extremely naive.
"The way to stop this economic crisis is by letting people keep their money and use it to stimulate the economy."
Wrong. In a recession, people will be saving as much money as they can, even those who can afford to spend it. An injection of cash into public spending is a tried and tested method of getting a country out of recession and holding off depression. It's called Keynesian economics, and it works.
He raises taxes on households that make 250,000 dollars a year or more. People you make that much money usually work there asses off.
That's great...and they should continue to work their asses off because they are still making way more money then people who make 20,000 dollars a year, even with the tax increase.
In a perfect world, no one would get taxed and the government wouldn't be needed at all. But in the real world we do need the government, and it takes money to run the government. So let me ask you a question, who should we take the money from? The people who are making over 250,000 dollars a year, and are working 45 hour weeks. Or should we take it from the construction worker who has to work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day for about 50,000 dollars a year. (In case you were wondering, that's a description of what my former wrestling coach had to do. His schedule actually kept him from coaching my last two years of high school).
I agree with the american dream, but not everyone can live the "american dream." If everyone was living the american dream, we wouldnt have people doing ordinary but needed jobs. Fixing disparity doesnt have to come from the wealthy, there is no need for these rise in taxes, if Obama took troops out of the middle east,like he promised, it wouldnt require the billions of dollars for funding, which can go toward other things.
I agree with the american dream, but not everyone can live the "american dream." If everyone was living the american dream, we wouldnt have people doing ordinary but needed jobs.
Your right that not everyone can be CEO of a company or a multi-millionaire...that's not what I was suggesting. I also agree that we will always need people to do manual labor, low paying jobs. There is no reason, however, that these people shouldn't have basic rights like education and healthcare.
if Obama took troops out of the middle east,like he promised, it wouldnt require the billions of dollars for funding, which can go toward other things.
Obama actually promised to just take troops out of Iraq. The war in Afghanistan will still require U.S. troops. I agree that military spending is out of control, but it would be irresponsible to just pull out all the troops from Iraq too quickly. He has scaled back our presence their significantly, however, and soon we should be virtually gone.
The flaw you have is that you think it's the governments job to help people financially. It's not, that's our job, weather it's us or our neighbor. Of course people need help! Are you saying it's better to have the government involved in charity rather than the people?
He never says any of those things. In fact he often says that government is not the only answer. He talks about working hard in every other speech. Maybe you should look at some of the things he has actually said, instead of just the out of context sound-bites Rush Limbaugh and friends want you to hear.
I expected more from someone as intelligent as you.
I should vote you down just on your manners alone! But I will hold off for now.
I expected more from someone as intelligent as you.
In my opinion, evidence is everywhere. However, I will take up your challenge.
BUT!
If I go to the time to give you three examples that you can validate, will you apologize for your remark and then admit that at the very least he as a politician apt to telling a few white lies?
Well I'll admit right now that he can stretch the truth. I mean, come on, do you honestly think anybody anywhere in the world could get elected if they didn't fudge the facts once in a while?
That said, I do think Obama is a lot more honest than most politicians.
I was calling bullshit on your assertion that "any thing he says will be diametrically opposite from what he does". That's just not true.
You call a duck a duck? Well I call bullshit bullshit.
Anyway, I'm fine with discussing your three examples if you want.
from what Ive heard everyone's talking about what obama wants to do(little of what he is already doing). obama has made promises on his campaign and boy did he promise alot, He promised an end to NAFTA, criticizing it, calling it a mistake. after his inauguration his story changed, he endorsed it. DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE THE MONEY FROM THE STIMULUS PACKAGE GO? The reason why this "president" is in office is because hes charismatic and a hell of an actor, did you see how many people cried when he was elected, how many smiles and hopes people had, and how many promises he broke. In his inauguration speech he kept blaming us the American people for the recession, i beg to differ. I picked up the newspaper, Headlined: First Black President, but when will it say the first good president. we've had a few great presidents JFK and Lincoln to name a few but we all know what happened to them.
some of you will not believe me and thats okay, but if some do believe than look up the obama deception on you tube.
Don't worry though, I have biggy and tupak hanging out in my basement, we're currently disecting bigfoot, aliens actually assassinated jfk because he threatened to make area 51 public, and I'm a magical unicorn writing this with my hoofs.
What I "love" is that, he had promised during his campaign that he would remove troops from the middle east, that was one of his main vocal points. During Bush's presidency nobody would shut up how Bush keeps sending troops and funding this war, but since Obamas presidency has started, he hasn't removed any troops, but deployed more, but you have nobody complaining about that. Thats what I "love" about him, you don't really hear anything from the democratic public about what he needs to do better, because he has a lot of them in a trance because they are still so awed at how he has overcome such diversity, blah blah blah, I could care less is our president is purple, who cares about the color of his skin, and if you vote for him because of his promises, fine, but if you vote for him because the color of his skin, the american public doesnt deserve the right to vote. I hate that he isnt being held accountable for his "promises" that he delivered during his campaign trail. I guess all the presidential election is, is telling the american public what they want to hear, even if you have no plan on carrying it out.
He said he would end the war and bring our troops home after consulting with the generals in Iraq. He has done that and has since created a timetable for bringing the troops back.
One reason for not bringing them back immediately is the success of the surge. Before the surge Iraq looked like a hopeless case. But after the surge, violence levels dropped sharply and a stable, democratic Iraq became a real possibility.
No I'm not defending the war -- I think it was a big mistake -- but the fact is we've come so close and it makes sense to see it through.
Read my comment below and definition. We are quickly moving that way. Adding to the industries and ownership that Government has which is the definition of Socialism. The more obvious one that people forget is property tax. if you pay off your home and own it scott free you will always have property tax and if you don't pay that even though you have paid off your land and home government will take it away from you. That by the way is Communism. Simple def of Communism state owned always. So there you go.
I dont' hate Obama he's a likeable guy i think that away from it all he is probably pretty cool to hang out with even though he may be a radical. i would love to play a round of golf with him. i can say that i hate Nancy Pelosi and it's scary to think that she is third in line to be President. Obama policies I hate but not the person.