By The United States Having Over 49,000,000 People In Poverty And 1/5 Of Children We're Unethical

Thank you for your time, thoughts, and considerations. For my last round I will carve out a well-defined thought that I feel cannot not be refuted, and if it is, is simply attempting to put the blind-fold over the eyes so as to not see the issue. My opponent draws a mental picture for those reading of the "sprawling suburbs" showing the building up of society, drawing people out of poverty. But, I dare say, take a look at that picturesque suburb once more . . . and take a peak deep within the picture to underneath the bridges and overpasses . . . to the park benches in the city . . . to the house crammed with 3 families living in a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom space . . . you don"t notice that aspect at first, but upon a second deep hard look, you see that other aspect. I have no once in this debate, and will not, disregard our countries, The United States of America, and their ability to bring people from jobless and poverty, to working and making ends meet. As my opponent made the point about the 2008 Wall Street & Banking collapse in our country. And during that time when, excuse my language, hell was breaking loose from office buildings to the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, we saw a growth over the past 7 years to go from a 10% (some suggest it raised to 15%, it depends what "expert" you listen to), now between lower to upper 5% (across the boards as far as "expert" opinion). Although there isn"t a perfect place to refute this within this piece of writing, I do want to point out the awkward statement made by my opponent stating, "The reason gas is so high in the US is because that shows the standard we have set for ourselves. " I would like to remind my opponent that gas prices in the United States rarely, if ever, are priced due to "standard" in which we are living. If this were the case, during the 2008 recession we would have seen the gas prices recede, when it was the opposite, and we saw prices double what they are today. I am not sure where he is getting this figure, but to those reading I can assure you from research and market trends, prices are based on oil prices, exporting, importing, and these aspects combined. Not on our "standard of living", that my opponent proposes. And although my opponent does not realize it, he just made my exact, specific, pin-pointed point, EXCELLENTLY. Let me explain. During this "crash" or more so, "crisis", the only reason (and this has been agreed upon by experts from every background, political standpoint, et cetera) that this crash did not lead to a Market Crash and Bank Crash WORSE (yes, worse) than the "Stock Market Crash of 1929", was the fact that this time, the United States government pushed money from their bank to the companies effected. This is more commonly referred to and known as the "Stimulus Package" or "Obama"s Stimulus Package", but what most people do not realize when denouncing this decision our president of less than a year made, if it had not been what he did, we would have seen a crash and jobless rate higher than we did in 1929. Experts agree, "Much worse"Even larger scale and harder to come out of. " In the years between 1929 and 1939 (the ending of the Great Depression), it was said only one of out every four American"s was unemployed (25%). It was estimated to be a possible 60%-80% unemployment from 2009 to "? ". But, I will not digress into stating numbers and statistics because I think that draws away from the discussion. Now, someone must ask, "Why would Matt say that his opponent made his point? " The answer is because the United States Government did an act that could be seen as "extreme socialism". They funded and wrote checks to companies and banks all over this country (as well as to banks in places such as Korea, Russia, etc. But we won"t tackle that subject). I will mention that an open record document of how much money and what bank or corporation was given can be found through the treasury department"s website. So, if the government can take tax payers money and disperse it to companies and banks in which their CEO"s and Owners continued (fact) making their multi-million dollar bonuses, why can the government not do the same model to the 49,000,000 in poverty, or at the very least the 22,000,000 in "destitute poverty" meaning if not homeless one step away? Since the stimulus worked so well to corporations and banks, how could such a stimulus work if given to the people? Here, I will state, is what you would see: 1. People be able to either get transportation and a steady ground to get a job and/or an education that promotes growth. 2. People investing into the economy weather from the minor of buying food, to buying clothes for work and interviews, to buying automobiles for travel. 3. You see a growth in individual"s ability to grow themselves, and also a growth given back into the economy by these people on their way of growth. If I had a decision where my tax dollars would have been placed rather than in a random bank in Korea I would have decided in the hands of destitute poverty stricken that would not have any other way that a "boost" to get them going. Why, then, you must ask has this not been done? Money. No, not the lack of money from the U. S government, but the lack of clout and kickbacks that corporations can give the government. Helping "poor Susan and her kids" does not sound as good as claiming the saving of "J. P. Morgan Chase Bank" and all subsides. I would like to respond to a statement I made that I believe my opponent took the wrong way. In stating that the "wealthy deserve it," I was not stating that I, myself, me, believe every single wealthy person should have that amount of money. There are some stories I read that I would not blink an eye if their money was taken and given to less fortunate and themselves lived a well-off lifestyle (we shall say, for numbers, double the average cost of living in the United States), instead of their frivolous lives inept in themselves and pointless fame. But, for the sake of keeping an "American Capitalist Mindset", I made that statement. I wanted to clarify what my statement was for, not what my beliefs were (I mean really, Kim Kardashian is worth HOW much? ! Yes"You can laugh at that). My opponent declares, multiple times, that "poverty is innate". But I am glad to see he attempt to dig himself from the hole he created at the end by saying he would hope to see a "fix to poverty. " But, I must bring to mind that stating that, "Poverty is innate" is directly and purposely putting the blind-fold on to ignore the problem. It is an excuse, and a bad one at that. But, I applaud him for stating he would hope to see a fix. I do too. But I wish to see one sooner than later, which I feel his opinion and argument"s stand point is, "Not now, not yet, but we will get to it. " I say, "Right now. Stop putting it off, if you are putting it off, what is more important than saving the well being of individuals, men, women, children, and infants? " It better be a life and death immediate emergency that would cause you to turn your back on such a situation, yet Americans and the United States government do it every day. We have numbed ourselves to a dangerous point. I will not end this with final statements or a plea of mutual ground, but rather a scenario I penned in my journal some years ago to get you thinking "outside the mind. " --- "Why is it poor people gather together? Why is it that the homeless create cities within our cities rather than begging on the street? Why is it you never see a homeless person, sitting on the patio of the 4-Star restaurant with the hedge fund manager getting a bite to eat? Is it because the homeless person has no money even for a drink and bread? No, it is not the lack of funds. It is the lack of the hedge fund manager, the CEO, the corporate big-wigs seeing that within society,