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

The rebuttal in round #1, it is argued that the United States shall not be said to be unethical due to the millions in poverty. I would like to bring forth arguments in rebuttal to this by way of analyzing certain statements that were made. First, I would like to bring to mind that the statement, "The United States is a country bound to have poverty like any other country." In this statement, it is assumed directly that due to size there is without a doubt, with no reservation, that there will be poverty. I bring to mind that this is an assumption. I do not fault the Con for making this statement, because it has been ingrained in the majority of American society that, in essence, "This is just the case." But, it is also making the assumption with this statement that, "We can"t do anything about it." That is the secondary assumption to this statement. And I ask, why? You can look to see that there are certain individuals with not only millions, but billions of dollars to their name. No person could ever spend that much money in their lifetime, no matter how hard they tried. That is, unless they buy in such excess that it is not needed, and is mere buying just to buy. This is not to say that those with excess money can not buy things of great value. If the person has made a wage that gives them that freedom, then that freedom should stay in tact. But, at what point do we draw the line and say, "There is such an excess of wealth and money, stock piled in bank accounts. What good is it doing? None." Second, It is stated that even though there is poverty, it is "far from (a) critical level"" In which case I ask; then what is the critical level? Is it when there are over 60,000,000 individuals in poverty? 80,000,000? 100,000,000? To make this statement is to assume that action should not be taken until it is deemed critical by society. Is this not a dangerous proposition? Especially for a society that considers itself a capitalist society. You see, the capitalist society only functions by way of the consumer. I believe this is often forgotten. As the poverty level increases, the consumership decreases, instating the capitalist to decrease production, which decreases jobs, putting more of society into poverty. Do you see, it is a circle that once broken, topples into shards that can not be put together again. It would seem, the capitalist would be the first to be for seeing an increase in ways to lower the poverty level. Does this take coins out of the purse of the wealthy? Yes. Does it cripple the wealthy? No. But the most important aspect is, "Does it keep consumers coming back, and the jobs increasing, and the wealthy to remain wealthy? Yes. Final Statements: Do not think we have shifted the speaking away from ethics in place of economics. But, to argue this aspect of society, poverty, it is tantamount we speak of this aspect. Because the wealthy continue to want "Tax Breaks", and "No Intrusion", it is saying, "I want to keep my money, and the reason is because I want to keep my money." This is all wretch and will lead to a state of distress, and eventually societal collapse. But by the wealthy, the business owners, the investors, giving due amount back to society, it increases buying by the consumer, increasing jobs, increasing opportunity, increasing education, until you see a society with little to no poverty, and at that point in which we get to that level with only 10,000 individuals, or 1,000 individuals in poverty, society must ask, "Why?" Why are these select few in a state of poverty? And it would be expected that the companionship of society would come together and help these few up off the streets and replace them into a working order of the cognition and good taste. By not doing this, and by letting the greedy simply "keep to keep", it is unethical in the sense that it is greed and distaste that leads to this mindset. It can not be argued that compassion is unethical. And to change the way and open the purses of the wealthy in which they would never in their lifetime, or their children"s life time, or their children"s children"s life time begin to scrape the bottom of the purse, we see the society uprising, those in poverty end their suffering, and begin a new mindset that does not see "wealth" as the final and best answer, but "stability." I digress and argue that yes, by the United States not only as a country but at the top of society there being exponential wealth and yet suffering from the lack of such a small percentage of that wealth at the bottom, the society of America has fallen into an unethical landscape.