The Instigator
kyleflanagan97
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Can a balanced U.S. Federal budget be realistically passed by the process of slashing expenses.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
ViceRegent
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 224 times Debate No: 91275
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

kyleflanagan97

Con

This is the first debate I am hosting, so I will keep the rules simple. Be civilized and no badgering. First round is accepting debate and to the simple rules.
ViceRegent

Pro

Easily in one year. According to the CBO, the debt in 2016 will be $534B. We will spend $1.17T on the income redistribution schemes to buy Dem votes knowns as Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, TANF, SNAP, etc. If we ended these two unconstitutional, immoral programs, the budget would go from deficit to surplus overnight.
Debate Round No. 1
kyleflanagan97

Con

I think when we first start this debate it is important to understand deficit and debt. I believe you mean that the deficit will be $534B, as our debt is $19.3 trillion. Deficit means the shortage of money after each fiscal year, while debt is the accumulative total of deficits. Since we are still in 2016 and cannot predict other emergency financial expenditures, such as another war or such, I will focus on fiscal year 2015. The federal government brought in $3.248 trillion dollars. Now mandatory spending accounts for $2.45 trillion, this is where your programs like Obamacare are located, but also things like veterans welfare and agriculture subsidies, which i assume you do not want to be cut. So annual budgets can only discuss discretionary spending, where medicaid only makes up $66 billion, so to get rid of programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, etc. would require a law being passed by both houses and signed by the president, which in a polarized political system even a simple majority would be tough to achieve, especially since a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll released that 43% of americans like the law Obamacare, and 42% dislike the law.
ViceRegent

Pro

I may have misunderstood this debate. Are you asking if it is realistically philosophically or politically?

Turning to your response, there is no mandatory federal spending. This is a misnomer created by liberals to fool the people into thinking that certain money has to be spent. Nonsense. Congress could authorize the spending of not one dime if they chose, and neither the President nor the Courts would have anything to say about. That alone settles the philosophical question. And yes, get rid of the VA, HHS and Social Security. We would then have a massive budget surplus that we could use to give all taxpayers a massive tax cut.

As to the political question, no, the American people want the government to spend and spend and spend. It is only a matter of time before we finalize the destruction of the country by hyper-inflating the currency. The U.S. then becomes a third world nation, especially once oil is no longer be traded in U.S. dollars. All those with assets should ex patriate ASAP.
Debate Round No. 2
kyleflanagan97

Con

Congress cannot just cut away funding from programs that are mandatory, even in the event of a government shutdown these programs would still be funded, and a law would have to be passed by congress to cut funding to these programs, and then signed by the president. So congress cannot just cut off all funding. The focus of this debate was political reality, that neither side would be willing to cut programs, republicans would never be willing to cut the military budget which is the largest discretionary spending fraction, and democrats will never vote to cut funding to welfare programs. You cannot debate that congress can cut funding to welfare with no say from president or courts, if you honestly believe that you may need to retake your government class in high school.
ViceRegent

Pro

Yes, Congress can cut anything they want. They simply provide no money for it. And yes, I agree with you that politically, this country is doomed to financial wreckage. This is why we need a Convention of States to draft a new Constitution.
Debate Round No. 3
kyleflanagan97

Con

I think you should refer to this source, http://nlihc.org... on page 3 it has a flow chart that explains how the budget process works. Congress does not have sole control over the budget process, and this process only applies to discretionary spending, which is why their is a difference between the 2. Mandatory spending is not negotiated in the budget, mandatory spending is guaranteed by laws passed by congress and can only be changed by laws passed by congress. Which also requires a president signature. And how about we fix the country we have now before trashing it and trying to start over, you're supposed to be the optimist in this debate.
ViceRegent

Pro

I am well aware of how the budge process works, and yes, Congress can zero out anythinG. And fiver Congress provides no money for say Social Security, there is nothing for the President to veto.
Debate Round No. 4
kyleflanagan97

Con

If you had read the resource I provided you would have seen that the president must sign off on a budget, and if he doesn't the government would shut down, which would not de fund welfare programs, those programs continue to exist.
ViceRegent

Pro

Again, if Congress does not send the President a bill to fund a department, there is nothing for him to sign.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BenD 9 months ago
BenD
kyleflanagan97ViceRegentTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: The only sourse in the round ws from con, so he wins that. I gave arguments to pro because, yes, the house has the power of the purse. The founders gave them enough power that they could, on their own, ballance the budget. As pro said, they can simply not put welfare into any budget they send the president and eventualy he will be forced to sign. The only part of this round that confused me was whether we are asking if it SHOULD happen, if it is LIKELY to happen, or whether it COULD happen. I am going to follow the wording of the resolution here and judge based on whether it COULD happen. I think pro showed that yes, it could.