Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work

Our job creation problems is actually fairly simple to solve.
We need to tax corporation who outsource their labor... who is going to replace the cheap labor you ask?

Easy...The people who collect unemployment need to be put to work.

The government pays the unemployed�, the corporations pay the government the same wage they paid the overseas worker. (maybe the government will break even, they can use the rest of the money to help the unemployed - skill training, counseling, home assistance)

You might see this as slave labor for the corporations, but i say

So you rather see people collect unemployment checks, and drain our economy further? What is the point of people sitting around collecting checks.... Put these people to work, maybe they will learn a new skills at this job... Maybe they will make valuable connection�s that can lead to a real job. Obviously these jobs are going to very low level type jobs... Employers might see something in these people that can lead to promotions�. These are your choices... Outsource OR feel productive�, learn new skills, make connection�s. Outsourcin�g is a pure drain!

I thank my opponent for the chance to debate him on the topic. I would also like to wish my opponent the best of luck during the round.

Case
My opponent's idea on how to help the economy is highly flawed because not only does it lack meaning, but it also lacks significant information. My opponent's idea, if possible, does not solve the general economic crisis rather it addresses the smaller section of the economic crisis (unemployment). To better the economy, one must address all factors that causes the economic crisis in the first place. Failure to do this would only result in a waste of time, money and effort. In our current economic crisis we can no afford the lost of money on unnecessary things. We must treat everything regarding the economy, with fragility.
Thank you.

I thank my Opponent for accepting this debate, and I wish him the best of luck as well.

My opponent states that my idea does not solve the general economic crisis, I never claimed it would.
I am simply trying to solve ONE of our problem within our current economic crisis.

My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of time and money.
I disagree, helping people getting back to work is a good thing, it might not solve the entire economic crisis, but I think its a step in the right direction.

My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of money.
This idea can actually save the government money because they are receiving money from the corporations for supplying these workers.

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate topic.

"My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of time and money.
I disagree, helping people getting back to work is a good thing, it might not solve the entire economic crisis, but I think its a step in the right direction."

My opponent neglects the fact that although this might create, jobs for the united states, it would require constant regulation by the U.S government, which in turn would require money to allow for regulation.

"Estimates of the costs imposed on the national economy by federal regulation reach $500 billion a year. In Indianapolis, that means more than $1 billion a year is sapped from our local economy just to comply with federal regulations."
(http://www.cato.org...)

As of right now, the government cannot spend money on an idea that simply resolves a small sector of the United States economic crisis, rather, it needs to focus on the bigger picture (a way to repair huge amounts of the economic crisis.)

"This idea can actually save the government money because they are receiving money from the corporations for supplying these workers."

Like i mentioned earlier, the enforcement and regulation of new taxes will cost the United states huge amount of money thus increasing other taxes placed upon the United States citizens. my opponent failed to provide us with evidence as to how much this resolution could save the government or even how much to charge these companies. For this reason, passing this resolution would be a huge risk, as we are unaware as to how effective it could be. In addition, to spending money on enforcing and regulating this tax, the United States government would have to develop a means to punish whatever company fails to pay the money as well as spend more money enforcing these consequences.

In conclusion, my opponent has provided no specific information on how effective this resolution might be and how to properly regulate the tax with minimum cost. For these reason, i urge that you vote Con, as i have provided you with evidence showing that taxes are costly as well as address all of my opponents point of analysis.

I am glad my opponent is taking this debate seriously and I thank him for that.

"My opponent neglects the fact that although this might create, jobs for the united states, it would require constant regulation by the U.S government, which in turn would require money to allow for regulation."

The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal.

The source my opponent selected is not in the same context as to my plan to use existing IRS auditing procedures.

My opponent points out that passing this resolution would be a huge risk, as we are unaware how effective it could be.
The risks are minimal since their are no significant additional expenses to enforce the resolution as I point out above, and reward is incredible. People getting back to work, learning new skills, feeling productive, networking.

"The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal."

The IRS is a total complete wreck. It has shown several reasons or situation in which it is unable to properly regulate taxes. Given them another Tax to regulate would be equivalent to giving a severe mentally retarded child pre-cal test and expect an A.
"The regulation is already in place, it would just be an additional item for the IRS to check during audits. The incremental cost is minimal." (http://blog.aicpa.org...)

"The source my opponent selected is not in the same context as to my plan to use existing IRS auditing procedures."

I ask my opponent this question, were is prove of effectiveness. We cannot pass a resolution simply because it looks
good on the outside, we have to go in depth to assure us that this will be an effective program. Our economy today, does not give us opportunity to simply waste money in passing a resolution that will in turn fail with no benefits.
To properly reduce the unemployment rate in the United States, the answer is not to Tax companies for overworking there employee, but to build new job in which people are able to apply for.

"The risks are minimal since their are no significant additional expenses to enforce the resolution as I point out above, and reward is incredible. People getting back to work, learning new skills, feeling productive, networking."

Taxing companies on the basis that there are minimal cost in regulation would be mutiny as the government is now taxing its citizens without giving them a clear understanding as to how the enforced tax is going o help the public. This would be equivalent to letting criminals run free on the basis that freeing prisoners is more cost efficient than imprisoning them.

Ones again, my opponent has provided no evidence as to how this is beneficiary to us, thus failing to meet his burden of proof. For the reasons that i have countered all his points, i urge you to vote Con on the basis of superior case as well as a better argument.

Thank You.