why i supported, and still do, Barack Obama

Barack Obama( and why you should vote for him)
U.H.C= Universal Health Care

There are many issues that I agree on with Obama, but in this essay I am going to describe 4 major ones. To start I am going to talk about: Health care.

Many people say that U.H.C would cost too much. However, due to the fact that these are generally the same people that support the war in Iraq, where 500 billion dollars are being spent per month they generally have no right to say that. Right know H.C costs are soaring, and greedy executives control our money, our job choices, even our health. Everybody acts like the government is the worse thing since World War 2, but I trust the government more then greedy corporations that exist for profit, and not for the people; which brings me to my next point. Many doctors are against U.H.C because they believe it will lower there paychecks. This is in most cases not true because an insurance company makes doctors lower prices in order to be able to treat that companies patients. The insurance company is then paid for this service by the people, and the company takes some extra money. The government however, is only concerned about making ends meet, not making money, which is what taxes are for, so it won’t pressure the doctors into lowering their prices as much as private companies. Which brings us to a conclusion= U.H.C would keep doctors wages the same, or even increase them.

Money brings me to my next issue: Taxes

A common lie mongered by the Republicans is the idea that Obama will increase our taxes. This is a blatant lie. Anybody making under $200,000 a year would get a tax cut, or in other words 95% of the U.S. population will receive a tax cut. Well, asks Rush Limbaugh, why not to the rich so that the money can “trickle down”? (Snort). Here’s the reason. The largest part of the U.S. population is the middle class. When 85% of the population can afford an I phone, and a new T.V., and a new car, and buy stuff from companies, why it is that rich people (3% of the population) who can already afford an I phone with or without a tax break get a cut…..? Lastly, many people say that poor people “don’t deserve” less taxes because they never “worked hard”. There are two problems with that. First, if you live in the ghetto, or in a poor middle class family, who never had the money to send their kids to college, and spent more time just trying to feed themselves and didn’t have spare money to try and send their kids to collage. I think that the dad and mom who work at McDonalds day and night, just to feed their children, they work harder then the lawyer whose rich parents got him into college, and he will do the same. Secondly, there are many difficult, high work professions that pay very little. Take teaching for example. Teachers have to go through 4 years of expensive collage, or sometimes even more in order to earn a degree for a job that will pay them very little compared to how much some lawyer or banker gets for comparably same amount of work. But if it weren’t for teachers or similar professionals, society would fall apart. Is that the reward? Being told that they don’t DESERVE a tax cut?

Iraq:
So far we have spent 500 billion dollars in a foreign country with minimal success. Every single one of the pricey plans that Obama calls for could be paid if we stopped throwing money there. Obama’s Iraq policy calls for leaving a minimal force behind in Iraq, and then moving most of the troops to Afghanistan, the Forgotten War, were real terrorist are hiding. Know you might ask what I meant by real terrorists. Well the thing is, that invading Iraq, is the reason that there are insurgents there. It isn’t because of Al-Qaeda, we created them! Of course there going to fight back! However if we leave, we will stop radicalizing more people against us.


Education:
A good education is very important in this competitive world, and we are being out competed in the international scene by other countries. In a 2003 study conducted by UNICEF that took the averages from other countries in education efficiency the United States got No. 18 out of 24 nations. Barack Obama wants to increase funding of public schools, scrap the terrible “No Child Left Behind” act, and give more money to scholarships for public colleges, so that even the poor, and low middle income kids have a chance of making something with their lives.

Hi and welcome to YWS! I like debating and I really love debaters who have strong arguments, so I'm just going to be a devil's advocate and go through your points and point out which is a fallacy and such so that you can be a stronger debater.

So first of all, this suffered through some grammar and spelling errors. To make your argument as strong as possible, you have to sound smart, which means that you have to correct all your grammatical and spelling errors. Read through it really carefully and make sure that you don't make any mistakes in this area.

Now! The meaty stuff!

Many people say that U.H.C would cost too much. <-- Introduction!

However, I believe that when these same people tend to be the ones that spend 500 billion dollars in Iraq, they don’t have much right to say that. <-- Opinion! And opinions tend to be bad, especially as evidence, because they're very subjective. When arguing, use as much facts as you can. It'll make it stronger.

Right know H.C costs are soaring, and greedy executives control our money, our job choices, even our health. <-- Biased word choice! When making a solid argument, you have to make sure not to use emotional word choice. This means you can't say they're greedy.

Everybody acts like the government is the worse thing since World War 2, but I trust the government more then greedy corporations that exist for profit, and not for the people; which brings me to my next point. <-- Opinion! And, because you're basing your points on your opinion without founding your opinion on anything substantial, the rest of your argument isn't as strong.

Many doctors are against U.H.C because they believe it will lower there paychecks. <-- Use their! Also, expand on their beliefs! By showing us their beliefs in a fair way, then arguing against it, you are debating smartly!

However, this doesn’t make much sense, so let’s examine how an insurance company works. <-- Nonsequitar! Doctors are different than insurance guys, so give us an introduction on how they connect.

An insurance company makes doctors lower prices in order to be able to treat that companies patients. <-- Really? Say why this works! Right now it seems over-simplified to an extreme point, and that won't help us understand what is really going on, therefore your argument doesn't hold up. Also, this doesn't seem to be what I know about insurance... which is something that I actively pay for and worry about. So research all you can into this so you can make the strongest argument possible!

The insurance company is then paid for this service by the people, and the company takes some extra money. <-- Once again, over-simplified! Do some research on this so it sounds like you know what you're talking about.

The government however, is only concerned about making ends meet, not making money, which is what taxes are for, so it won’t pressure the doctors into lowering their prices as much as private companies. <-- This seems to contradict what I know! My dad works in the government in a public service, and they're constantly trying to make money. So you may want to do more research this and make sure that your facts are absolutely correct. It would be horrible if you ended up lying to your readers, even if it was accidental!

Which brings us to a conclusion= U.H.C would keep doctors wages the same, or even increase them. <-- How would this happen? You don't bring us to that conclusion in a logical way! Add more information and it should be better.

Lastly U.H.C is a right deserved by everyone. <-- Opinion!

Just because you don’t make as much money, does that deny you the right to be healthy? <-- Nonsequitar and poisoning the well fallacy! You should be able to craft a solid argument without having to rely on guilting your readers into agreeing with you. Debate is all about logic.

The life expectancy in the U.S. is 77 years. That is less then Jordan, a 3rd world country. <-- Nonsequitar! This doesn't really have to deal with what your main argument. It only emphasizes the sentence previous to these, which is emotionally driven and really has no place in debate.

A common lie mongered by the republicans is the idea that Obama will increase our taxes. This is a blatant lie. <-- Word choice and namecalling! Not all Republicans are like this... trust me, I know. I am a Republican. So you can't group everyone together.

Anybody making under $200,000 a year would get a tax cut, or in other words 95% of the U.S. population will receive a tax cut. <-- This is good!

Well, asks Rush Limbaugh, why not to the rich so that the money can “trickle down”? (Snort). <-- Make sure that you quote Rush Limbaugh without quoting him out of context, and do not put your emotional response in here! This is a debate. You want to convince us to follow you using logic.

Here’s the reason. The largest part of the U.S. population is the middle class. <-- Check: is this really true?

When 85% of the population can afford an I phone, and a new T.V., and a new car, and buy stuff from companies, why it is that rich people (3% of the population) who can already afford an I phone with or without a tax break get a cut…..? <-- I don't understand what your point is here. You may want to clarify it.

Lastly, many people say that poor people “don’t deserve” less taxes because they never “worked hard”. <-- Check! Is this true? This rings wrong with me because I haven't heard this argument, and I listen to a lot of conservative sources. From the hours I've spent listening to them, they want everybody to have lower taxes. They're kind of tax cut crazy, lol. So you might be arguing on a point that the Republicans and you agree on, which means you don't have to argue this point! Make sure you're not arguing a point that nobody else is arguing.

There are two problems with that. First, if you live in the ghetto, or in a poor middle class family, who never had the money to send their kids to college, and spent more time just trying to feed themselves and didn’t have spare money to try and send their kids to collage. <-- Usually sentences like this that start with "if" have a "then" part. This sentence has no "then" part, so it doesn't make sense. And because you're not making sense, your argument doesn't hold up. Also, those people are called "lower class." If they're that poorly off, they're not middle class anymore.

I think that the dad and mom who work at McDonalds day and night, just to feed their children, they work harder then the lawyer whose rich parents got him into college, and he will do the same. <-- Opinion! Also, you're getting off track. You should be talking about why the rich deserve the tax cuts.

Secondly, there are many difficult, high work professions that pay very little. Take teaching for example. Teachers have to go through 4 years of expensive collage in order to earn a degree for a job that will pay them very little compared to how much some lawyer or banker gets for comparably same amount of work. <-- Check! Teachers have to go through more than four years of college more than not.

But if it weren’t for teachers or similar professionals, society would fall apart. <-- Really?

Is that the reward? Being told that they don’t DESERVE a tax cut? <-- You're arguing the wrong point! Republicans are tax cut crazy. Their main difference is that they think tax cuts should be extended to the rich as well. Argue against this point, since that is the main difference. Don't get side-tracked on this stuff-- people agree with you already. You want to convince them to agree on something that they disagree with initially.

So far we have spent 500 billion dollars in a foreign country with minimal success. <-- Prove it! How has it been a minimal success? You have to define the words "minimal" and "success" if you want a strong argument.

Every single one of the pricey plans that Obama calls for could be paid if we stopped throwing money there. <-- What pricey plans? Explain!

Obama’s Iraq policy calls for leaving a minimal force behind in Iraq, and then moving most of the troops to Afghanistan, the Forgotten War, were real terrorist are hiding. <-- Describe this in greater detail! Right now, you don't seem like an expert in this, and good debaters always seem like experts on their subjects.

Know you might ask what I meant by real terrorists. <-- Informal tone! Get rid of this.

Well the thing is, that invading Iraq, is the reason that there are insurgents there. <-- This sentence makes no sense. You might want to fix the grammar and get rid of the informal tone.

It isn’t because of Al- Qaeda, we created them! <-- This doesn't really make sense... we created what and how did we create them?

Of course there going to fight back! However if we leave, we will stop radicalizing more people against us. <-- Explain! This paragraph is so far the weakest of your argument, so it looks like you really don't know what you're talking about. So just research this and become and expert in it, and everything should be fine. Don't be afraid to explain what thought processes you went through in detail.

A good education is very important in this competitive world, and we are being out competed in the international scene by other countries. In a 2003 study conducted by UNICEF that took the averages from other countries in education efficiency the United States got No. 18 out of 24 nations. <-- Good! This is really good, besides some grammar things. You cite your sources, claim a study, and that's just awesome. This is the sort of proof that you need to give throughout your debate to make it stronger.

Barack Obama wants to increase funding of public schools, scrap the terrible “No Child Left Behind” act, and give more money to scholarships for public colleges, so that even the poor, and low middle income kids have a chance of making something with their lives. <-- Describe how increasing the funding, scrapping the "No Child" act, and more scholarships will help. It might be obvious for you, but the good debater always reinforces his thinking with additional facts.

Hope this helps!

I'm pretty sure Snoink caught most of your errors, but the one that caught my eye is the $200,000 error. It started at 250,000, and it has slowly worked its way down to $120,000.

Guess what, Barack Obama isn't looking out for the little guy as much as he said.

Not to say that 120 large per annum qualifies you as a "little guy", but a self-employed, small business owner is going to have to go through a ridiculous amount of trouble to get their company off the ground.

Many people say that U.H.C would cost too much. However, due to the fact that these are generally the same people that support the war in Iraq, where 500 billion dollars are being spent per month they generally have no right to say that.

This is called a non-sequiter argument. The fact that people support the Iraq war -where far less than 500 billion is being spent per month, more like 10.3 billion- has absolutely nothing to do with the argument that socialized medicine costs too much.

That argument is the equivalent of me saying that Barrack Obama is an Islamic wack job because Joe Biden was born in Delaware.

To use as evidence for your argument, you could instead use examples of governments with UHC and cite their experiences to support your argument.

You might point out England who has had socialized medicine for quite a while now. Of course, that's a terrible example because people often die while waiting for operations and the dentistry waiting list is so long, many people resort to self-operation.

You could cite Canada, but wait... Canada's waiting list is even longer than England. Canada's median waiting times from a patient's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist, depending on the procedure, averages from five to 40 weeks. The wait for diagnostics, such as MRI or CT, ranges between four and 28 weeks. If socialized medicine is so great, why do Canadian physicians send patients to the U.S., spending over $1 billion each year on health care in our country?

Upon closer examination, it turns out that socialized medicine is not such a great evidence for Barrack Obama, after all. Socialized medicine will do a few things, but it will not dramatically improve the health care in this country.

Socialized medicine will make work for the doctors easier, because they will have about a tenth as much paperwork.

It will put millions of Americans who work in the medical insurance industry, out of business, driving up the unemployment rate.

I'll get off my soapbox for now. I'm not trying to get your post moved to the debate forum, but you should do some research before you decide to support a politician with claims like, "Why I supported him and still do."

*Gets off soapbox.*