The Instigator
Darface
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Maverick32
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

budget cuts.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Maverick32
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,634 times Debate No: 27927
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Darface

Pro

When revenues from taxes and fees decline, government officials face a gap between projected revenue and planned expenditures. Unlike the federal government, which can borrow to finance its budget deficits, state and local governments must balance their budgets. For governments facing a budget deficit, balancing the budget means raising taxes, cutting spending or instituting a combination of both. Raising taxes is never popular but can be political suicide during an economic recession. Often, policy makers prefer to look for budget cuts as an alternative.
Maverick32

Con

First off I would like to thank me opponent for instigating this debate, and I look forward to having a nice debate.


To start my case, something of great importance needs to be explained to the viewing public. Since my opponent has chosen the PRO side of Resolved:"Budget Cuts" he must limit his arguments to only budget cuts being good for the economy, while the side of CON (me) has the free reign to pursue varies forms of economic strongholds. I will focus on 3 key areas in my case, consisting of Tax Increase, Tax loophole closure, and the detriments of Spending cuts.


Key Area of analyzes 1) Tax Increases help the economy in more ways then people think.

Sub-point A) Taxes Bring in more Revenue then spending cuts. if we look to an article written by the Noble Prize winning in Economics, Paul Krugman, he affirms how we need taxes by saying "The Obama Administration has proposed a Tax increase plan that will generate $1.6 Trillion in additional revenue in the next decade, while the GOP has only proposed a spending cut proposal that will cut important social programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, while only generating 1/5 of what the Obama Administration has proposed already".


Sub-point B) Taxes pay for important Programmes that Spending/Budget Cuts do not pay for. Chris Joseph reports that “Raising taxes results in additional revenue to pay for public programs and services. Federal programs such as Medicare and Social Security are funded by tax dollars. Infrastructure such as state roads and the interstate highway system also require taxpayer funding. Real estate and property taxes are used to build and maintain schools.” as you can clearly see, without tax increases we can not sustain normality of life in the future, without the federal programming we currently have due to taxes .

Sub-point C) Historically Tax increase has worked. On the website USnews.com we see an article that shows how the raising of income taxes helped in the past, and they will help again. “ In 1993, President Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress enacted deficit-reduction legislation that raised income tax rates for high-income taxpayers. In 2001, President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress cut income taxes. economic growth and job creation were much stronger after the Clinton tax increases than after the Bush tax cuts.”


Sub-point D) Sin taxes bring in even more revenue, while promoting the general health. If we look to a study, done by the TabaccoFreeKids.org, we see that Taxing harmful items such as tobacco could discourage people from using them. It states “If every state and the District of Columbia added a $1-per-pack tax on cigarettes, 2.3 million kids would not take up smoking, 1.2 million adults would give up the habit and 1 million premature smoking-related deaths would be prevented.” Also, on the website Rueters.com, it states how "Sin taxes, when last used in 2009, created an additional $20.6 Billion in revenue."

Key Area of analyzes 2) Tax loop wholes will be closed, helping the fiscal cliff.

Sub-point A) Tax Havens being closed. on MotherJones.com it states "At least 83 of the 100 publicity traded corporations in America shield large chunks of their income from taxes by keeping it overseas, according to the Government Accountability Office. In fact,according to the USPIRG report, 30 of the nation's biggest, richest companies actually profited off the tax code between 2008 and 2010, by by I Want This" href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/offshore-tax-havens-fiscal-cliff">avoiding taxes and getting tax refunds from the government." and concludes "if this loophole is sealed it will wipe out the fiscal cliff spending cuts for 2013"

Key Area of analyzes 3) Spending cuts harms the economy.

Sub-point A) Budget cuts harm the economy. The the Heritage Foundation it gives 5 points on how spending cuts harm us. Here are 3 of them: 1) “As government health care is cut (or not provided in the first place) each of us must take on those costs on our own, and as demonstrated, pay up to seven times what the same care would have cost.” 2) “As infrastructure maintenance and modernization is cut, our economy becomes less competitive, unemployment increases and our wages and spending power fall.” 3) “As spending on education is cut, our costs of educating ourselves and our kids increase. College costs soar. And the overall education level of our people will decrease, making our country less competitive in the world.”

Sub-point B)Social Security cuts will devastate the economy.
Also, on the Heritage Foundation it affirms “Social Security allows working people to retire with at least a minimal income. If this is cut many could not retire for many more years (if ever), which would increase the unemployment rate because their jobs would not open up. The same is true as the retirement age is increased -- fewer job openings.

I thank my Opponent once again, and will now let him make his second round case.



Debate Round No. 1
Darface

Pro

: In the ongoing battle of the budget, President Obama has done something very cruel. Declaring that this time he won"t negotiate with himself, he has refused to lay out a proposal reflecting what he thinks Republicans want. Instead, he has demanded that Republicans themselves say, explicitly, what they want. And guess what: They can"t or won"t do it.
No, really. While there has been a lot of bluster from the G.O.P. about how we should reduce the deficit with spending cuts, not tax increases, no leading figures on the Republican side have been able or willing to specify what, exactly, they want to cut.
And there"s a reason for this reticence. ...Republican posturing on the deficit has always been a con game, a play on the innumeracy of voters and reporters. Now Mr. Obama has demanded that the G.O.P. put up or shut up " and the response is an aggrieved mumble.
Here"s where we are right now: As his opening bid in negotiations, Mr. Obama has proposed raising about $1.6 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade, with the majority coming from letting the high-end Bush tax cuts expire and the rest from measures to limit tax deductions. He would also cut spending by about $400 billion...
Republicans have howled in outrage. ... They say they want to rely mainly on spending cuts instead. Which spending cuts? Ah, that"s a mystery..., when you put Republicans on the spot and demand specifics about how they"re going to make good on their posturing about spending and deficits, they come up empty. There"s no there there.
And there never was. ... Now Republicans find themselves boxed in. With taxes scheduled to rise on Jan. 1 in the absence of an agreement, they can"t play their usual game of just saying no to tax increases and pretending that they have a deficit reduction plan. And the president, by refusing to help them out by proposing G.O.P.-friendly spending cuts, has deprived them of political cover. If Republicans really want to slash popular programs, they will have to propose those cuts themselves.
So while the fiscal cliff " still a bad name for the looming austerity bomb, but I guess we"re stuck with it " is a bad thing from an economic point of view, it has had at least one salutary political effect. For it has finally laid bare the con that has always been at the core of the G.O.P."s political strategy.

thank you, this was fun, only 13 =)
Maverick32

Con

To start off, many important points have to be look at here
1) my opponent fails to hive is any points in his case. He just rumbles on about how democrats are bad and republicans are good
2) he provides no evidence backing up anything of what he has said concerning point 1 above.
3) he has not attacked my points; therefore he must agree with them declaring me the victor
4) I have hard evidence supporting my side.

Now that we have seen this, we must understand why I have won, however, let us still look at my opponents "accusations" and see why they are wrong. In our society, and government today, we are facing something we have never yet before faced, a fiscal cliff that will, and can, destroy every aspect on out lives as we know it. To avoid this from happening we see politicians trying to path either one or the other: tax increase or spending cuts. My opponent would like to ONLY attack the side of tax increase by calling them "democrats" and corlating them with evil (once again this is my opponent's ONLY arguement in the debate today). I, on the other hand, will show you plain and simple why tax increases will work.
1) historically in times of depression/recession (1950 and the 1990's) taxs have built up our economy; historically, spending cuts have only harmed us
2) if we look to other countries with high tax rates (belgium 54%, findland 49% and Germany around 45%) and see the highest GDPs on the world (8th, 10th and 14th) we see a correlation; where countries with spending cuts have the lowest GDPs.
3) what is genuinely better for the economy: $1.6 trillion in revenue with tax increase; or $300 billion (around 1/5th what tax increase will raise) in revenue while cutting social programs that are NEEDED!

I think the choose is clear, on who has won the debate, and what the government is going to do in regaurds to the fiscal cliff.

Thank you for you time. Now back to you Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
Darface

Pro

When you say " destroy every aspect on out lives... " what do u mean by that. Also i have never stated that republicans are better that democrats. as with budget cuts, we will need lower, or terminate tax revenue. Both parties have agreed that any budget deal to avert the so called "fiscal cliff" must incorporate substantial reductions in military spending in the next few years.

that all.
Maverick32

Con

I would like to first thank my opponent for a good debate, and now move onto my final statements.

In our economy today, we need to plan for the future and get America back on it's feet. To do this we must look to times in our history to see that Tax increases have done great for our economy, while spending cuts have done our economy wrong. We have to look and see clearly one side has a better argument and a better plan for the future. My opponent has failed to attack ANY of my main points, while i have disputed everything he has said.

I leave you with this... What is Better? $1.6 Trillion in revenue, or $300 Billion in revenue... Clearly, Con has won todays debate.

Thank you for your time, and I thank my opponent one last time. it was fun!

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Pro's second-round post is plagiarized.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Pro, did he get it right? You want to argue in favor of budget cuts, and you want someone else to argue against them?

I've reread your OP, guided by Cometflash's insight, and it looks like you're prepared to argue for budget cuts at the state level, because of the current downturn. Is that right? Or are you just as happy to argue for budget cuts in general, including at the federal level, and including in good times?
Posted by Cometflash 4 years ago
Cometflash
To me is clear. He is PRO budget cuts, and CON should be against it.

PRO can focus on why budget cuts are necessary and on the pros to have it. CON can focus in the doubt of budget cuts being really necessary, and the negative effects.

I can think of some cons, but not enought to outweigh the pros, of why I did not attempt to debate.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
What do you want to debate? Make a clear simple resolution, like, "Resolved: raising taxes in bad times can be political suicide."
Posted by Darface 4 years ago
Darface
does no one want to debate with me?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
DarfaceMaverick32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism. (Edited to add: I've changed my vote since Pro was the one who plagiarized. I voted for Pro accidentally, should have voted for Con.) Pro's first post was mostly written by Paul Krugman at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/opinion/krugman-the-big-budget-mumble.html?_r=0
Vote Placed by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
TheElderScroll
DarfaceMaverick32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: A very confusing debate. To my understanding, Pro is in favour of spending cut owning to some sort of political reasons (tax increases amount to political suicidal) while Con suggests that budget cuts are no good, instead government should go after revenue increases (Tax Reforms). The most confusing part of this debate is Pro's response in R2. It seems that he actually argued against Budget cuts, calling Republicans' proposal "a mystery" and "For it has finally laid bare the con that has always been at the core of the G.O.P."s political strategy." Con offered some good arguments in R2, but Pro did not go after any one of them. In summary, my vote goes to Con for presenting more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
DarfaceMaverick32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Because he plagiarized, that shows bad conduct, no reliability of sources, and makes his arguments invalid in my mind
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
DarfaceMaverick32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has better arguments. Looking into plagiarism charges...