Taxes are the best way to lower the national debt
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1- Acceptance and arguments for con
Round 2- Arguments for pro, rebuttals for con
Round 3- Rebuttals for pro, con responds to rebuttals
Round 4- Pro respond to rebuttals, con doesn't do anything
Burden of Proof
Con- to give an alternative to taxes as the best way to lessen the national debt, and then prove that their plan is better than taxes.
Pro- To prove taxes are a better plan to lessen the national debt than the cons plan.
No trolling or vulgar language! Please take this debate seriously!
1) The PRO must prove that the national debt is an issue. Not only that is existent but also that this impacts the public.
2) National debt must be proven to be lowered to a point where it helps the public. If the PRO proves that it lowers the debt by 1 dollar you are not going to vote for them. They have to prove that the money they save helps people, and lowing the national debt will help people. Anyone can make claims but they must prove the claims have impacts on you and me.
Contention One: The national debt has no impact.
One big issue about debt is people believe that it creates a national security situation. This is simple not true. Every single country in the world has debt. This makes the impact of the US's debt minuscule. When a country accumulates debt they sell it off to other countries in-order to insure economic prosperity. Because all countries have debt they must then sell it off to other countries which in-turn sell their debt to them. This creates a interdependence between the 2. Other countries shave more debt than the United States. This just further strengthens the economic interdependence that exists between all countries not just the US.
For example Japan debt is 228% of their GDP. This proves 2 things
1) That a country can survive with a huge percentage of debt. Japan is one of the most prospers economy in the world. The Heritage foundation ranks Japans economy 25 in the world. This means that the US is not at risk due to their debt.
2) Other countries have more debt then the United States. This is important because it proves that there is more debt from other countries than that of the United States. Remember that there is no there is no that from debt because all countries have debt.
b) No country owns enough to make any real impact.
China is the largest own of USA debt but we see that this only amounts to 900 billion dollars. No this may seem like a lot but compared to the total debt of 17 trillion dollars this is nothing. This means that there are no threats from outside manipulation on US foreign policy or diplomacy. Also remember countries will not recall all their money back at once. Remember the interdependence that exists between all countries. If China recalled all debt this would cause a global scare and have all countries require debt from not only china but also its business partners.
Contention Two: There are several other ways to lower debt
a) Cut government spending
One of the most efficient ways to low debt is lower government spending. the US spends over 1 trillion dollars a year on our military alone. If we were to use even 1% of this we could eliminate some of our debt. Look at the F-45 project it has run 1.5 trillion dollars over budget. 1.5 trillion dollars that could be spent on eliminating the debt are helping the people of the US but it was spent developing a plane that is not planed to be finished in the next 10 years and still has over 1000 design flaws. This is the first method to eliminating debt. I gave one example i which we could save trillions of dollars. this shows the key is not punishing the people with taxes but cutting spending.
b) Oil reserves
The United States owns untapped oil reserves worth 128 trillion dollars. This is by far more than enough to pay for the United States debt. Oil reserves due prove to be a very sure solution to the growing debt that the US has.
c) Precocious metals
On top of all the oil the united states owns almost 442 billion dollars in untapped gold. This is important because gold price fluctuate very little and can be give as a hard form of currency.
I think that we can clearly see that the clear and more efficient way to tackle the United States debt. Remember the tax payers are the ones paying the taxes when we have trillions of dollar in untapped oil and wasteful reject trashing and throwing away the public taxes.
Contention Three: Taxes harm the individual.
The point of taxes are to help the public. This could be paving roads and building schools. The government made the national debt. This was because of irrational funding and extravagant journeys that had no impact on the public and general hurt the people. Taxes are meant to help the public. the government has a responsibility they can not simply pass this off or the people if they do not want to deal with the problem themselves.
Contention Four: Increase spending does not decrease debt
Increase government spending due to increase taxes does not help reduce the debt. The heritage explains that because the government spends does not mean that this will help the national debt and the people. Taxes are going to be spent not buy back the debt but moreover to spend on program aimed at decreasing the debt. this is simply will not work.
Taxes- a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
Debt- something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another
Credit Rating- a classification of credit risk based on investigation of a customer's or potential customer's financial resources, prior payment pattern, and personal history or degree of personal responsibility for debts incurred.
Observation 1 - The only way for the government to gain money besides taxes right now would be to take out more loans, which will put them into deeper debt.
1.The debt will lower the united states credit rating, making getting money in the future from other countries/people more expensive in the future, making taxes higher in the future
2.The government has no other form of income besides taxes
Contention 1- The debt will lower the United States credit rating, making taking out more loans more expensive in the future, which makes future taxes higher.
A credit rating is based on many things, such as "customer's or potential customer's financial resources, prior payment pattern, and personal history or degree of personal responsibility for debts incurred." If your credit rating is bad, you need to pay more interest on your loans, because the lender is less sure you will pay the loan back. The United States, according to treasurydirect.gov, paid $8,702,166,816.21 in October alone, and that was a good month. The united states paid $430,812,121,372.05 last year. That's $35,901,010,114.3375 a month! Granted, 430 billion a year isn"t much compared to 17 trillion, but if we multiply $430,812,121,372.05 by 4, without adjusting for the increasing debt, we get $1,723,248,485,488.2 as our interest debt from 2014 to 2018. That means we produce nearly a trillion dollars in interest debt every two years, and soon, it will be even more. 1 trillion dollars onto a 17 trillion dollar debt matters. Now, this all leads back to credit rating. Soon, the United States will not be able to take out more loans without its credit rating dropping, making it more expensive to take out more loans, getting them into deeper debt that lowers their credit rating again. Lets look back and see what makes up a credit rating. A "customer's or potential customer's financial resources, prior payment pattern, and personal history or degree of personal responsibility for debts incurred." The United States literally has no money. They do have gold and oil, but the only way for the government to make revenue off of that would be to tax to companies who mine/dig for it. The United States cannot maintain their great prior payment pattern in such great debt, as they cannot pay off old loans without taking out new ones. Finally, similar to prior payment patterns, the united states will not be able to keep up it"s amazing history of always paying back loans when it has so many. Now that we have shown why the debt matters, lets look at why taxes are the best way to stop or slow it down.
Contention 2- The government has no income besides taxes and loans
This argument is very straight forwards. The government makes consistent money in two ways, taxes and loans. The previous contention explains why the government cannot take out so many loans, so taxes are the only way they can make money.
Corrections/ factual misconceptions in my opponents case
1.The only way for the government to make money off of oil/gold/other resources would be to tax the companies that mine them.
2.My opponent stated Japan"s economy is the 25th best in the world. According to the website he sited, http://www.heritage.org..., Japan"s economy is 25th freest, in the world, not best. According to BBC, http://www.bbc.com..., "The country (Japan) has been struggling economically for around 20 years"
The opponent talks about debt will lower the credit rating, in their 1st contention. I have a few responses.
1) This is total dependent on the fact that taxes will fix the debt. The opponent talks about how debt decreases credit ranking remember they can not solve this issue unless taxes work to decrease debt.
2) The opponent does not prove how taxes would be channeled into getting the US out of the debt. At this point we need to balance the debt in order to even begin to lower debt. They must prove conclusively taxes will go to destroying debt. What we see in the past is the government raising tax and spending on education or military. Because the resolution talks about taxes being the best to lower the national debt, but we do not know that the taxes are going to go to the national debt. At this point they proved no path.
3) In the same piece of evidence that he looks at his argumentation for decrease credit score, it explicitly says a "downgrade in credit score should not have the severe consequences that some fear." Turn his argumentation. It has no impact.
4) EVEN IF you do not want to buy my argument about decrease credit rating, this actually do not matter in the world of economics. The United States is a powerful nation with a powerful economy. The fact that it has a low credit rating than this will not matter because interdependence. I bring this up in my constructive. The fact tat the world economy is not heavily effected because of interdependence.
Attack to the 2 Contention, the government has no other sources of income.
1) The government does. As I explain they sell the oil field off to private investors. The cost for all of the oil fields is 128 trillions dollars. My opponent has misinterpreted my point. The point states that we sell the field not tax the people that mine the oil.
2) Income comes form selling. (Oil, Gold, Military)
The opponents 1st attacks talks about how we tax the mining.
1) We sell the field not tax the field. We can easily tackle the debt.
The opponent also attacks my Japanese economy point.
1) Remember this is one example and that it clearly demonstrated the interdependence point.
Remember that the debt of the the US does not matter because of interdependence. This was clearly drops. You should be voting for my off of this alone. Interdependence means that people are dependent on each other and they cannot afford to attack others.
Dropped the Taxes point. I talk about taxes and how it is the governments responsibility to draw themselves out of the holes they dig. The government needs to make choice that help not hurt.
Contention 1- the national debt has no impact
a) Economic interdependence
There are 2 big flaws in this argument
First, although economic interdependence is a real thing, it exists in waves. For example, If I owe 9 dollars to china and 300 billion dollars to Russia, although I am economically dependent on both, I am more dependent on Russia. Therefore, Russia has more control over my economic actions. What this means is that the less economically dependent the US is on other countries, the more economic freedom it has. Second, if the US gets out of it's debt, it is one of the only countries that isn't economically dependent on other countries, turning it into an economic superpower.
b) Debt doesn't affect the economy
I refuted this evidence earlier. My opponent is right in stating this is a small example, but notice he couldn't come up with an other example of a country in debt that has a thriving economy.
c) No country owns enough to make an impact
If china owns 900 billion of 17 trillion, china owns 5% of the national debt, which is a very big influence on the US, and the US doesn't want to 1/20 of their national debt to arguably their biggest rival.
Contention 2- Their are other ways to stop the debt
a) cut government spending
This will help a lot, but spending less money only gets us into more debt slower.
b) Sell land with oil reserves and gold mines
This is a good way to make money, but it isn't practical for the government for a few reasons. To begin with, the government doesn't even have the right to sell most of that land because it is owned by private investors. Second, the government is not a real estate agency! According to Bureau of Land Management, "The law states that the BLM can select lands for sale if, through land use planning, they are found to meet one of three criteria: 1) they are scattered, isolated tracts, difficult or uneconomic to manage; 2) they were acquired for a specific purpose and are no longer needed for that purpose; or 3) disposal of the land will serve important public objectives, such as community expansion and economic development." http://www.blm.gov...
Land with oil and gold will almost never meet these criteria, if ever. Simply stopping the national debt doesn't qualify, or that land would've been sold long ago.
Contention 3- Taxes harm the individual
Then why do we still have them? Because the government can use them to fund programs and erase debt.
Contention 4- Increase spending does not decrease debt
If I spend more, I go into deeper debt. This seems pretty self explanatory, but I don't think it is a contention as much a fact.
Now I will respond to my opponents rebuttals.
The US currently has a perfect credit rating on most of the credit rating agencies. The best is AAA, and two of the big three give the US AAA. The third gives an AA , which is the second best rating. http://www.reuters.com...
One of the main agencies also has the US on downgrade watch, showing that the US's credit rating could decline if they continue to head into debt. This shows how if the debt is stable (doesn't get bigger) the US should be fine. If the debt gets bigger, then credit rating's could fall. My opponent never addressed why this argument is important. It matters because the lower the credit rating, the more interest investors can demand from the US from loans and bonds, making it more expensive to take out loans and bonds.
The government is not a gold digger or an oil miner. They cannot dig for oil, or gold on property the do not own. My second contention still holds true.
Bottom Line- The bottom line for this debate is whether taxes or oil and gold mining are better solution to the national debt. The debt has been proved as relevant, and even if it wasn't, the resolution assumes that it is, and asks not whether it is important, but how to stop it. As oil and gold mining or selling fields are impractical as proved previously, if taxes do can lower the national debt by one dollar, and I guarantee they do, voting for me is the only choice in this debate
Now I would like to address my opponents summary of the debate. Realize that nothing new was stated in the summary. My opponent simply restated their main point. Now, I will address it again. My two rebuttals were that A) The government doesn't own most of this land, and B) According to Bureau of Land Management, "The law states that the BLM can select lands for sale if, through land use planning, they are found to meet one of three criteria: 1) they are scattered, isolated tracts, difficult or uneconomic to manage; 2) they were acquired for a specific purpose and are no longer needed for that purpose; or 3) disposal of the land will serve important public objectives, such as community expansion and economic development." If land with Oil and Gold met this criteria, it would already have been sold! Taxing oil is simpler and more environmentally friendly way to make money from these reserves. My opponent stated that there are other ways to make money. This is true. There involve taking out loans, pushing the government into deeper debt, and demanding damages from countries, which requires threatening other countries with military/diplomatic strength.
Bottom Line- The bottom line for this debate is whether taxes or oil and gold mining are better solution to the national debt. As oil and gold mining or selling fields are impractical as proved previously, if taxes do can lower the national debt by one dollar, and I guarantee they do, voting for me is the only choice in this debate.
LD101 will type 'no round as agreed' in their fourth round. Again, thanks for reading/ debating.
Look to ALL of my argumentation in the 1st round because most of it was dropped (they told me i was right).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years 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:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes the argument that the US has 128 trillion dollars in oil that it could sell to pay off the national debt. This oil is not owned by the US and is owed 100% by companies and land owners that may or may not even be US companies. Con makes no argument how the US government is to make anything off this oil. Con should have used a more rounded argument.
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.