The American Jobs Act (Obama Jobs Bill) Should be Passed
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Pro Intro and Format/Con Arguments Against
Round 2: Pro Arguments for and rebuttal to con arguments/Con rebuttals
Round 3: Continued rebuttals and addition (if necessary) of more points
Round 4: Each side voices their reasoning why they have won the debate.
1. Cutting and suspending $245 billion worth of payroll taxes for qualifying employers and 160 million medium to low income employees.
While cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth is not a bad strategy, you can get a lot more bang for your buck in other places, particularly by eliminating the corporate income tax. That would only cost $191 billion and would have a tremendous impact on economic growth, particularly if we make it permanent. Businesses would flock to the United States because of our low taxes.
2. Spending $62 billion for a Pathways Back to Work Program for expanding opportunities for low-income youth and adults.
Spending billions on a program such as Pathways Back to Work is inefficient. The best way to expand opportunities for low-income youth is to expand charter schools so they have an opportunity to escape their failing public school. An expensive jobs-training program has too much potential for abuse.
3. Spending $50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.
There is no such thing as a shovel-ready job. It may take years for a project to be approved given our current litigation system. A deficit-neutral way to create jobs would be to streamline regulations and make it easier for construction projects to be approved.
4. Spending $49 billion on extending unemployment benefits for up to 6 million long-term beneficiaries.
Unemployment benefits should not be extended. They do more harm than good because they encourage laziness. Many people have been on unemployment for 2 years. They receive money for doing nothing and that is not just a waste of money but violates the dignity of that person. Unemployment would go down if we cap the time period for unemployment benefits at 1 year or less. People would then be more motivated to find a job.
5. Spending $35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters
This is just code for protecting labor unions. Teachers, police officers, and firefighters have an important purpose, but they are government employees. Having too many government employees is bad for the private economy because it crowds out private investment.
6. Spending $30 billion to modernizing at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.
This would provide little economic stimulus because this modernization would take place next summer. My plan of lowering taxes would create jobs now. Another idea is repatriation of profits: allow all companies to take money back to America tax free. This would inject billions into the economy.
7. Spending $15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.
The best way to spur construction jobs is through eliminating the corporate tax. This would help a lot more than another stimulus.
8. Creating the National Infrastructure Bank (capitalized with $10 billion), originally proposed in 2007, to help fund infrastructure via private and public capital.
Similar, streamlining regulations is a better idea than spending more taxpayer money on projects that may take years to be reauthorized.
9. Creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety, while expanding accessibility to high-speed wireless services.
I do not oppose this part of the bill.
10. Creating additional regulations on businesses who discriminate against hiring those who are long-term unemployed.
While this has good intentions, more regulations mean less jobs. Businesses spend over a trillion dollars on regulatory compliance. That money could be used to add 43 million workers.
Finally, to pay for this plan, Obama puts a huge surtax on millionaires and tax and fee increases. Taking money out of the private economy is never good during a recession, even according to Keynesian economic theory.
My plan stimulates economic growth by allowing businesses to keep more money to create jobs, streamlining regulations, and restoring economic freedom.
I will first establish my own case and then offer my rebuttals to my opponent's.
The American Jobs Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation aimed at providing strong economic growth to many Americans.
I offer the following 3 contentions, showing that this legislation will indeed be beneficial to the United States of America.
1) Payroll Tax Cuts
2) National Infrastructure Bank
3) Modernizing our nation's educational system.
Contention 1: Payroll Tax Cuts
Today, when the United States is growing at a sluggish rate, and 14 million Americans are out of a job, the United States Congress must look to tax cuts, including Payroll tax cuts, in order to revitalize the economy.
According to Greg Mankiw, professor at Harvard University, "the payroll tax cut goes entirely to the worker, This increases work incentives, but the main motivation is probably to increase take home pay and consumer spending".
These payroll tax cuts will be beneficial, as they will logically increase consumer spending.
According to Goldman Sachs, "The tax proposal would represent a significant more positive fiscal outcome for 2011 than we and most others have been expecting, including a one year reduction in the pay roll tax".
The simple fact of the matter is, these payroll tax cuts will bring money back into the hands of consumers everyone and this will directly benefit the economy.
Contention 2: National Infrastructure Bank
The nation faces two large problems today: 1. Unemployment remains fixed at 9.1%. 2. The nation's infrastructure is in a state of utter decay.
The National Infrastructure Bank represents a uniting solution to both of these problems.
A. A step toward infrastructural development at this time is crucial.
B. The economic and domestic impacts of a National Infrastructure Bank.
But first, I offer 2 observations in this contention.
1) The United States of America must begin to view infrastructural development not as spending, but as an investment. An investment into the people of the United States of America and the nation itself. Infrastructure is an investment, not spending.
2) The cost of fixing this nation's infrastructure will be enormous, an estimated 2.2 trillion dollars according to the American Civil Society of Engineers. However, the cost of doing nothing is even higher.
Subpoint A: A step toward infrastructural development at this time is crucial.
The nation is at a tipping point. Our infrastructure is in a state of ruin across the nation. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the United States an overall grade of a D on infrastructure.
They also estimate this:
-7 billion gallons of water are lost per day due to leaking pipes.
-25 percent of bridges are deficient.
-1/3 of all major roads are in poor or mediocre condition.
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, in 2008 and 2009, our aging infrastructure cost the economy nearly $2 trillion dollars ($2,000,000,000,000).
Something must be done, and something must be done now. The national Infrastructure bank represents a solution.
In order to analyze whether or not this bank will be successful, let's look toward the California Infrastructure and Development Bank. According to Stanton C. Hazelroth, in testimony given to the House Ways and Means Committee, the California Infrastructure Bank was started with only 181$ million dollars in 1989, but since then the bank has financed more than $220 billion dollars in projects. If we see the same benefits from the National Infrastructure Bank, we could definitely see a turn around in this nation's infrastructure.
Subpoint B: The economic and domestic impacts.
At a time of sluggish growth, the National Infrastructure Bank represents a clear venue in which to grow the economy. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, every $1 billion invested into infrastructure supports nearly 35,000 American jobs. At a time when unemployment is stuck at 9.1%, we need this jobs, and we need them now.
In addition, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, every dollar spent on public infrastructure yields a 159% return into the gross domestic product.
The National Infrastructure Bank will be critical to repairing our nation's aging infrastructure, while at the same time producing hundreds of thousands of jobs and contributing a 159% return into the economy.
Contention 3: Modernizing education.
Unfortunately, more and more teachers are being laid off. Fortunately, the American Jobs Act will help prevent the layoff of 280,000 teachers, police men and women, and firefighters, according to the White House Press Release on September 8th, 2011.
According to the White House Jobs Act Slide Show:
"44% of principals say that the poor conditions of their schools interferes with their students' learning. 1 in 3 public schools could be repaired or modernized".
This act will be instrumental in revitalizing our education sector by keeping teachers on the job, rebuilding public schools, and giving strength to education.
In conclusion, because payroll tax cuts will be beneficial, and because the nation needs an National Infrastructure Bank, and because education must be modernized. I affirm the legislation.
Looking on to my opponents case today:
1. My opponent openly admits tax cuts are a solid venue to economic growth. He contends that this isn't the best way to achieve growth. While I agree there are better ways to grow, this is still a solid and viable venue and a time of sluggish economic growth we cannot turn a blind eye to a beneficial policy.
2. The $62 billion is a necessary investment if we want to break the "Cycle of poverty" that plagues the lower classes. My opponent contended that the best way is expand charter schools and give an opportunity to escape a failing public school, however he has failed to realize that this bill will revitalize public schools.
3. My opponent fails to realize the operation of a National Infrastructure Bank and what it entails. The government only gives the seed money, it does not handle the bank after it has been given the seed money. The National Bank runs off of private sector investment and will not have typical arbitrary government regulations.
4. Unemployment benefits do not encourage laziness, as the far majority of recipients realize benefits will be working already toward finding a job. Unemployment benefits, for the most part, help those who are simply down on their luck, not the chronic couch potato.
5. Having teachers, police officers, and firefighters does not crowd out the private economy. Yes, we are Capitalistic, however there are certain areas in which the government must preform critical duties, education and security is one of those areas.
6. This part of the bill, rebuilding 35,000 schools, is not stimulus, it is a necessary expenditure. See my above White House evidence.
7. While I'm not contending not to lower the corporate tax, your plan doesn't deal anything with what you are arguing against. Again, infrastructure is an investment, not spending.
8. See my second contention.
10.Again, your plan does not respond to the actual argument, you just explain a different way to achieve economic growth. The simple fact of the matter is more and more businesses are discriminating unnecessarily against unemployed workers and we must do something to combat this.
11. Tax must be raised in order to pay off our debts, and millionaires have some extra money.
While I agree with some parts of your plan, you have not rebutted the actual arguments of the American Jobs Act.
For the above reasons, I must urge an affirmative ballot today.
The Act is clearly not bipartisan. Every Republican US Senator voted against it, even moderates including Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who voted for Obama's 1st stimulus.
Payroll tax cuts are a not very efficient way to cut taxes. "It would simply exacerbate our debt problems in my opinion" according to Congressman Paul Ryan. The payroll tax cut is simply another gimmick because it is temporary and demand sided. We had tax incentives similar to these in the first stimulus bill. It was promised that unemployment wouldn't go over 8%. Instead, we've had the longest streak of unemployment since the great depression. These tax gimmicks and temporary tricks don't work.
The enormous cost of fixing our roads is exactly why the federal bureaucracy shouldn't be involved. At $2.2 trillion, we can't afford to spend all that money. The infrastructure bank would fix very little, and pork-barrel politicians may divert funding to useless "Bridges to Nowhere." Infrastructure projects from the previous stimulus haven't fixed anything: you mention all the deficiencies: so what makes this new stimulus plan, with even less bipartisan support, any better?
1. Good tax cuts are a solid venue to economic growth. But they need to be focused on those creating the jobs. Demand-side tax cuts are temporary gimmicks.
2. You say that this spending will "revitalize public schools." School spending has increased enormously and class sizes have gone significantly down, but test scores haven't improved. This is because teachers unions are preventing common-sense accountability measures. We need private schools so we can experiment and find the best ways to teach our children, not spend money we don't have and call it "investment".
3. We don't need to spend federal government money at all on infrastructure. The Dulles Greenway was built entirely by private investment. If we streamline regulations to building infrastructure(these regulations are required for all projects, whether public or private), the conditions of our roads would improve because companies want to improve the quality of roads because they are bad for business.
4. Unemployment benefits do make people lazy. People applying for unemployment benefits had employment, but unemployment benefits can cause people to become couch potatoes. The lure of a paycheck for doing nothing can be too much for ordinarily hardworking people. According to JP Morgan Chase, unemployment benefits increased the unemployment rate by 1.5%. Unemployment benefits often are higher than minimum wage jobs, discouraging people from accepting perfectly good entry-level occupations.
5. We do need teachers, firefighters, and police officers, but too many government employees does crowd out private investment, even if they serve a valuable purpose. It would be great to rehire them, but that money will dry up eventually and those people may be fired again. The beauty of a private sector job is that it provides a permanent job for a person at no cost to the taxpayer.
6. School spending should be directed at local levels. The federal government has an innate tendency to waste money, but the innovative local governments can do more with less.
7. These construction jobs will go away when the money dries up. The projects may not even be finished. I am saying that lowering the corporate tax is a better way forward than another stimulus, considering the first one failed.
10. There is a reason employers discriminate against the unemployed during a recession: the best, most-competent people usually don't get laid off. Of course, employers could also see through other credentials that an unemployed person got unlucky. But more regulations leads to a higher overhead for business which leads to less jobs to go around.
11. The top 1% pay 41% of the taxes. They have paid enough. Requiring the top people to pay more is simply class warfare. Half of Americans don't pay federal income taxes. Big government liberals can bribe these people to vote for them, and then steal money from successful people so they can buy votes. In a recession, the WORST thing we can do is raise taxes. It crowds out private investment.
My counterplan is simple:
-Eliminate the corporate tax($191 billion less revenue)
-Streamline regulations(no cost, most likely net increase in revenue)
As former governor and financial expert Gary Johnson said, eliminating the corporate tax would create millions of jobs by itself. This would cost much less than the Obama plan, which many are skeptical if it would create any jobs(even liberal estimates say it would only lower the unemployment rate by 1%). We need to CREATE jobs by promoting economic freedom. My opponent never explained how this act is different than the first stimulus. If the 1st one didn't live up to predictions, why will this one?
For all these reasons, I urge a Negative ballot.
I will offer rebuttals to my opponents arguments and rebuild my own case.
"The Act is clearly not bipartisan. Every Republican US Senator voted against it"
Many Republican Senators have come out against the legislation, however, if you read the White House Press Release regarding the legislation, it contains many concepts supported by legislation in the past.
The Act is bipartisan, however the U.S. Congress is simply polarized.
""It would simply exacerbate our debt problems in my opinion"
Congressman Paul Ryan represents a misunderstanding. He believes by cutting taxes, we cut government revenue. However, if you look at the facts, this is wrong.
When Bill Clinton passed a pro-business tax cut in the 902, the revenues from business taxes, although they had been cut, went up. Yes, despite cutting taxes, revenues goes up. Congressman Ryan is mistaken, by cutting taxes we will actually increase government revenue. As I've pointed out throughout this entire debate, tax cuts are a successful and viable way to support the economy. Are they the biggest way? No. Will they help? Absolutely. With 14.6 million Americans out of work, we need all the help we can get.
"At $2.2 trillion, we can't afford to spend all that money. The infrastructure bank would fix very little..."
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, in 2008 and 2009, our degrading infrastructure cost the economy a whopping 2 trillion dollars. Yes, 2.2 trillion to fix is at lot of money. However the cost of doing nothing, is far bigger.
The infrastructure bank would actually fix an enormous amount. My opponent failed to look at my Hazelroth evidence. In 1989, the California Legislature approved $181 million to start an infrastructure bank. Over time, that $181 million dollar has been able to finance $220 billion in road construction. That is one reason California's infrastructure is in better shape then the average.
"Infrastructure projects from the previous stimulus haven't fixed anything"
To compare the 2009 Stimulus Package and the 2011 Stimulus Package is like comparing apples and oranges. It can't be done. And in fact, if you look to my Zandi evidence, you can see that infrastructure spending gives 159% returns into the economy.
" Good tax cuts are a solid venue to economic growth"
That's why I'm for cutting the payroll tax.
" You say that this spending will "revitalize public schools." School spending has increased enormously"
In fact, school spending has gone down drastically. Ask any public school teacher in America. If you don't take their word, try this evidence: ( http://www.cbpp.org...). This evidence clearly says that 46 out of 50 states have enacted education budget cuts in the past year. The simple fact of the matter is that we need to fix our schools. It's time to get serious about education.
"We don't need to spend federal government money at all on infrastructure"
No other body of power, not the largest corporation in the world, will have the ability to spend 2.2 trillion on an infrastructure project with little hope of such returns. This is one item our government must take care of.
the conditions of our roads would improve because companies want to improve the quality of roads because they are bad for business.
No company can frivolously spend millions to fix local roads in order to increase business. That argument is illogical.
"Unemployment benefits do make people lazy."
No, unemployment benefits do not make people lazy, they help those who need time to get back on their feet.
When my father lost his job December of last year (He found a job in February), he immediately went to find another job all the while recieving unemployment benefits. I'm well aware that this is only one example, but I hold a high opinion of the American people and I do beleive many of them are hard workers, not lazy as my opponent would contend.
"We do need teachers, firefighters, and police officers, but too many government employees does crowd out private investment"
There is not a private sector of firefighters or police offers, so government cannot be crowding out private investment.
"School spending should be directed at local levels."
The federal government passes educational funding legislation, then gives directly to state and local government.
"These construction jobs will go away when the money dries up."
It's a funny thing about infrastructure, it keeps degrading. Construction companies will always be needed to fix infrastructure for that simple fact. The money wno't dry up unless the U.S. government goes bankrupt (and it won't).
"the best, most-competent people usually don't get laid off."
Sometimes businesses go bankrupt and people lose their jobs, regardless of how well they performed.
"The top 1% pay 41% of the taxes. They have paid enough."
And the top 1% still has excessive millions. When Warren Buffett came out and declared he paid less taxes than his secretary, something has gone amiss.
" In a recession, the WORST thing we can do is raise taxes. It crowds out private investment."
That would be why this bill includes tax cuts.
Examining his counterplan, we are debating the Obama Jobs Bill, nothing more nothing less. The topic of this debate is not "The Obama Jobs Bill and/or any other plan one may propose". We are debating the Obama Jobs Bill and nothing more.
But to appease my opponent, I'll debate him on his "counterplan".
" eliminating the corporate tax would create millions of jobs by itself. "
At cost of millions of government jobs due to lost revenues. The gain is nothing because the loss is equal.
"We need to CREATE jobs by promoting economic freedom"
We tried economic freedom, and that led us into the 2008 financial calamity.
" My opponent never explained how this act is different than the first stimulus"
I don't have to, were not debating the first stimulus! But I will, to once again appease my opponent. The first stimulus created thousands of jobs and began vital infrastructure projects. The 2011 stimulus is a different approach, it will revitalize education, streamline regulations, modernize schools, cut taxes, and redo infrastructure. The 2011 plan is more comprehensive than the 2009 plan.
I must urge an affirmative ballot. Thank you.
Some concepts of the bill may be bipartisan, but the bill is not. Also, we live in a different era then we did in the "Work Together" era in politics. We have a $14.6 trillion national debt. It's extremely important to be very careful when spending any kind of money because that money will be debt for our children to pay off.
We don't cut revenue with all types of tax cuts. We would with payroll tax cuts because 47% of Americans pay 0 income taxes, so the extra income earned would result in a revenue cut. Eliminating the corporate tax would increase revenue because it boosts foreign interest in the United States to start up companies. Payroll tax cuts are simply short term gimmicks: demand-side tax cuts simply won't do enough to help the economy to justify the mammoth cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.
The infrastructure bank would fix very little because, while a few projects may have a return on their investment, most will fall flat. There is also a massive amount of possibility for corruption with an Infrastructure Bank, particularly with a crony capitalist/socialist like Barack Hussein Obama at the helm. See the massive Solyndra loan scandal. Money could also be wasted on things like crosswalks for turtles, just like what happened in the 1st economic porkulus package. There is also so much litigation required to start up a road project that we would still have declining roads, even with the interest bank. We could spend nearly all of the money and see nearly no roads built.
Infrastructure spending only nets the return when the roads get built. Getting through a federal bureaucracy makes that more difficult. Even the Infrastructure Bank will probably still have walls of regulations and hurdles.
I said that GOOD tax cuts are a solid venue to economic growth. Cutting the payroll tax isn't a particularly efficient way to cut taxes to spur growth. It's much better to have PERMANENT tax cuts on corporations. We have the highest corporate tax in the world, and it's a necessity to bring that down so we can become more globally competitive. The payroll tax is demand-sided and is not very efficient. There are much better ways to spur economic growth: repeal Obama's disastrous, job-killing legislation and regulations, lower taxes permanently on corporate and individual income tax, and create an environment hospitable to business in all ways.
School spending has recently been cut, yet test scores haven't declined rapidly, as fear-mongering liberals have claimed. We spend $200,000 per public school classroom. This is enough-private schools do much better with far less money. It's not a money problem, it's a union problem. Catholic schools often get a fraction of the money public schools get, yet they aren't breaking down. This is because the money is better spent in the private sector.
States and localities are better suited for infrastructure projects. The sheer enormity of the problem and the giant bureaucratic mess we have in DC are the reasons why we need to split up the projects: divide and conquer.
I am not saying that a particular company would have an interest. However, companies could band together because good infrastructure is good for all the business. While the cost of repairing all the roads is expensive, the problem is certainly not extremely drastic.
Studies indicate that unemployment benefits increase the jobless rate by about 1.5%. They don't make all people lazy. Your father is conscientious and cared about the value of work. However, many people will succumb to take a government handout because it is the easy way out. We would be better served if these people were working. Also, some people make more money off of unemployment benefits than a new, minimum-wage job they could take. This increases the jobless rate.
Too many public officials in general means too much government spending. Too much government spending does crowd out private investment? Don't believe me? Look at a graph of government spending growth as a percent of GDP and private sector growth as a percent of GDP. You see an inverse relationship.
States and locality receive the money, with a host of bureaucratic control and red tape.
When the money dries up, the construction companies won't have the incentive to hire the workers because they no longer receive money from the government. Of course. you could pass another stimulus bill containing more construction spending, but this would add to the deficit. If the companies would still hire them after the money dries up, then we wouldn't need government money for those jobs in the first place.
Yes, sometimes businesses do go bankrupt. In this case, employers can see that they actually were valuable to the company using various metrics. Businesses have a free-market incentive to hire the best employees.
"Excessive millions"-this phrase sounds extremely socialist. The rich EARNED their money. Many started out poor and worked their way up. They give a lot of their money to charity and still work very hard. I don't think we should have class warfare. Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. But he pays a lot more in taxes.
The bill includes tax cuts, but also raises taxes on the rich, those who create jobs. We shouldn't be taxing the
job-creators and redistributing it to everyone else. That is socialism and does not belong in this great nation.
Eliminating the corporate tax-$191 billion, about 1/3 the cost of Obama's plan.
Countries with more economic freedom have better quality of life, more income, less corruption, and better environments. The Democrats single-handedly destroyed the economy by encouraging the subprime mortgage fiasco: "Everyone has a right to own a home."
-I am just saying that estimates for the 1st stimulus were faulty. It said that unemployment would stay below 9%. It didn't. Can we trust these new estimates about Obama's new stimulus from the same folks? I think not.
We need real change, not more taxes and spending. I urge a Negative Ballot.
I'll first go over my opponent case then back over my own for the Final Focus.
Taking a look at my opponent's responses:
"we live in a different era then we did in the "Work Together" era in politics. "
That does not mean we cannot work together or attempt bipartisanship.
"We would with payroll tax cuts because 47% of Americans pay 0 income taxes"
Payroll taxes and income taxes are two very different things.
" Payroll tax cuts are simply short term gimmicks"
We can't wait forever for long term acts to go into effect. We need relief now.
"The infrastructure bank would fix very little"
Actually, if you researched infrastructure banks in the United States, almost all of the banks have done exceedingly well.
"See the massive Solyndra loan scandal"
We can't relate a private sector bank to a public sector infrastructure project. Simply because one project is bad does not mean they all are. In the same way, one cracked egg in a basket does not mean you have to throw all the eggs away.
"Money could also be wasted on things like crosswalks for turtles"
You show me the actual evidence, and we'll debate that.
"We could spend nearly all of the money and see nearly no roads built. "
Look to my Hazelroth evidence, infrastructure banks work.
"Infrastructure spending only nets the return when the roads get built."
And when the roads are inevitably built, then we can net the profit. =).
" Cutting the payroll tax isn't a particularly efficient way to cut taxes to spur growth."
Once again, is cutting this tax the best way? No. Will it help? Absolutely.
", lower taxes permanently on corporate and individual income tax"
And from where, exactly, will we make up those lost revenues?
"as fear-mongering liberals have claimed"
For the sake of what is left of national unity, let's refrain from calling each other these types of names. I'm just moderate, but let's be respectful on both sides of the aisle.
" It's not a money problem, it's a union problem."
All teachers have a union, not just public school teachers. This point is invalid.
"Catholic schools often get a fraction of the money public schools get, yet they aren't breaking down. "
Catholic schools also have only a fraction of the students!
"States and localities are better suited for infrastructure projects. "
That is why the infrastructure bank uses private business to perform the tasks. It is clear you have done very little, if none at all, research on this topic.
"divide and conquer."
Or Unite and Succeed.
"I am not saying that a particular company would have an interest. However, companies could band together because good infrastructure is good for all the business."
Name me one or two companies that have the profits to pay for 2.2 trillion dollars worth of repairs. You can't, because not even Walmart (the largest business in the world) has the much money. To fix our roads, it would take the combined forces of the Fortune 500 and thousands more businesses. This is simply too unrealistic.
"Studies indicate that unemployment benefits increase the jobless rate by about 1.5%."
Very specific, let's see the studies.
" Look at a graph of government spending growth as a percent of GDP and private sector growth as a percent of GDP. You see an inverse relationship."
Very specific once again, show me the research.
"When the money dries up, the construction companies won't have the incentive to hire the workers because they no longer receive money from the government. "
It is a funny thing about infrastructure, it keeps degrading. The money won't dry up until the U.S. government no longer exists (that will probably, and hopefully, be a very long time).
""Excessive millions"-this phrase sounds extremely socialist. The rich EARNED their money. "
The absoluetly earned their money, that doesn't give them the right to hoard it. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and others can be taxed as much as possible and still have billions. This tax isn't harming them, it's only helping everyone else.
"Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. But he pays a lot more in taxes."
Actually, had you researched this, you would find his secretary pays more in total taxes than he does.
"The bill includes tax cuts, but also raises taxes on the rich, those who create jobs. We shouldn't be taxing the job-creators and redistributing it to everyone else. That is socialism and does not belong in this great nation."
If this is so, lets stop all types of welfare. All types of food stamps. All types of foreign aide. Every single nation on the world would be socialist according to your definition.
"The Democrats single-handedly destroyed the economy"
Both sides played a part. Let's not play in absolution.
Let's look at the round as a whole.
My opponent has oddly claimed that each form of government aide is socialism. Every nation would socialist under this definition.
I have shown throughout the debate that:
A) Payroll tax cuts are a viable way to strengthen the economy. My opponent admitted this and conceded.
B) A national infrastructure bank is necessary to fix our infrastructure. My opponent said private business should do. No one private business, or even the Fortune 1000 could do this alone.
C) We have to modernize America's education. My opponent said we can't because that would be socialism.
We cannot look to his counterplan as that does not pertain to our specified debate.
I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate over the past couple days.
I urge an affirmative ballot.
We DO live in a different era than the "Work Together" era. Bipartisanship itself is not bad, but it's important to understand that all this "bipartisanship" has brought us to a $14 trillion debt. Now, it is vital to get serious about cutting spending and reducing tax rates on job-creators.
We can't increase revenue with payroll tax cuts because they are focused toward the poor. They won't have to pay taxes on their extra income because they don't pay income taxes. If we cut corporate taxes, that extra money will go to creating jobs, which means more people will pay income tax.
"The infrastructure banks have done exceedingly well"-which is exactly why you said our infrastructure is failing, right? And roads haven't improved since the first stimulus.
The National Bank can be used to fund bad things. $3.4 million was wasted on crosswalks for turtles before: http://abcnews.go.com.... Who says it won't happen again? This won't help our roads, but it will plunge us deeper in debt.
It takes time to get roads built with the litigation process. Sometimes, a bureaucracy blocks construction after millions of dollars are set aside.
I'm saying that there are better ways besides the payroll tax. And eliminating the corporate tax and cutting individual rates would cost less than Obama's stimulus. In my plan, we make up the lost revenues because all the money is injected right into the private economy to create jobs. These employees will pay payroll and possibly income taxes, making it cost less than expected.
You told me to refrain from using words like "fear-mongering". But you never addressed any of my evidence. Private schools do have teacher's unions, but they don't have the same kind of power. A principal can simply fire a teacher at any time for any reason. There are also some big Catholic schools, and they also do well with less money. I was referring to dollars per student.
The infrastructure bank does route to private companies, but it goes through a bureaucracy first that isn't good at determining which projects will actually help our economy and improve our infrastructure.
Let's divide the work into states and localities, so our infrastructure will be better. Then, we unite and succeed.
I said that corporations could band together. They can work together toward a common goal too, not just government.
Here is my evidence about unemployment benefits increasing the jobless rate. It even comes from a left-wing news website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com....
The Rahn curve explains that when government gets too big, the private economy grows less. http://www.heritage.org...
But the money will dry up, and more appropriations will be needed so the construction employees will keep their jobs. So the $3 billion price tag means $300 billion in a century.
The rich don't hoard their money-they invest in it to create jobs. And there are very few billionaires-your plan would also hurt people who earn $250,000 a year-which is not wealthy in many parts of the country.
Some form of socialism may be OK as long as it is predominantly capitalist, but telling the rich to pay more when they already pay so much in taxes is a hard line into socialism. Yes, all countries have a little socialism, and frankly, they'd be better off if they had a lot less.
The Democrats were the ones who promoted subprime mortgages.
Payroll tax cuts are too inefficient and won't grow the economy quick enough for it to be worth it.
All in all, the American Jobs Act is another partisan piece of legislation from the Community Organizer in Chief. Let's get working on real economic growth, not short-term gimmicks. I urge a negative ballot.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con did better.
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.