Can a balanced U.S. Federal budget be realistically passed by the process of slashing expenses.
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BenD 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.