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

I am now going to post a rebuttal to his points. The US in terms of poverty is better on a standpoint. By looking at it you can see big city's and sprawling suburbs. Why is this? This is because the US has not let the poor fall behind to the point of no return. In this country, the statement you can build up from nothing to something is extremely true. Look at the 2008 market crash. By this time of 2009 and Obama's presidency, the unemployment rate was 10%. Now (according to the US government) is 5.1 percent. That means in 6 year time half the unemployed got a job. That is a fact no-one can say isn't somewhat noticeable. The reason why gas is so high in the US is because that shows the standard we have set for ourselves. My opponent states that "We truly as Americans live such blessed and fruitful life, we squander it and do not appreciate it as we should. " While we live good lives, that just shows we earned it. My opponent makes a statement to my point the wealthy deserve it. I must disagree on him with this point. My opponent claims we are unethical to have so many poor in America. But I believe the fact of the matter is that poverty is innate. I believe it is going to happen everywhere regardless of how developed you are. By the time poverty is eliminated, we would be living in a society where it is socialist to a point where the overall quality of life is lower compared to the average citizen in a capitalistic country. This has already proven to fail, with the Soviet Union. While socialism is needed, it is not needed to the point where we are communist. We need to accept that some will be poor and some won't. We don't want these people to be poor, it just is innate. To this I also bring to the point that my opponent rejects my claim that despite the fact we help the people in poverty, it doesn't fix it. I agree with that but must question it on 2 grounds. 1. Would taking money out of the general people and government be able to bring all these people out of poverty? Even if so, the government would only bring them up to about the middle-class and reduce the standard of living by reducing the amount of money everyone earns in general. It's like the statement, "to make money, you must spend money" and that's the case there and the wrong choice. 2. How would bringing the poverty to a slightly better standard of living, and at the same time moderately reducing the average standard of living & degrading our achievements help? There are no two ways about it. It is like a balance. If you put to much weight on one side it will go down on the other. Right now, balance is key. We need to take it carefully and slowly help the poor. That is what food banks and etc are for. To support them on that journey. I will finish out by stating that having poverty is innate. However, the levels of it can change. For the US, it is not as high as worldwide. We have made many achievements, and to degrade them would be bad. Poverty will eventually be cured, it will just take some time. Food banks and etc are in place to help, not fix. To fix poverty en masse would be careless and would be bad for the nation as a whole. The poor have easier times getting up off their feet in this country than in most. This I think proves that while >49 million people is alot, also proves that America has also a high standard of living, low unemployment, helps the poor, and is slowly curing poverty. In the end, poverty is going to happen everywhere and we are better than most and at home. This argument I hope drives the point home we are not unethical.