tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do.
Debate Rounds (3)
the things that make up by far most of the budget are too hard to cut, and we shouldn't be cutting them too much anyway. social security, medicare, interest on the debt, defense, all make up over ninety percent of our budget. even if you wiped out the rest of the government, which would be the height off irresponsibility, you still couldn't even balance the budget, which is five hundred billion dollars. the budget is four trillion, simple math proves my point.
if you were to cut into defense majorly and cut the rest by say ten percent, you might be able to balance the budget. but within the next ten years the deficit will double, and there wouldn't be enough places to cut.
tax increases are inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do.
if you say we should privative social security an medicare you have to say how you will fund current and near retirees. privatization is a long term idea, not here and now
I would like to first point out a few mistakes in side pro's argument which presupposes that things such as medicare and social security are necessary to the country. These "services" are, in fact, neither necessary nor helpful to anyone (not even those who are supposed to benefit from medicare and SS.
Now, to present my constructive argument, I would like to say that most of the services provided by the government can actually be provided by private enterprises, which have a track record of providing significantly better services. Rather than heavily taxing those who create jobs, as well as the families who are living paycheck to paycheck, we can instead reduce the tax burden by reducing the size of government as well as the unnecessary services provided by the government.
To rebut some of side pro's points:
1. If government were to stop handouts as well as social security, a serious tax burden would be lifted, meaning more jobs and more job opportunities.
2. Privatization happens quickly in the absence of government monopolies on services. Side pro's point is null.
3. Retirees are not, in any way, kept alive by the government but rather by family and work pensions. In fact, lower taxes also mean lower tax burdens on retirees.
Back to you, side pro.
The idea that we have promised things such welfare is clearly untrue. Government as an institution promises nothing; people promise things. Only families have the duty and the authority to support older generations.
With that said, I would like to point out that side pro's argument is completely predicated upon the campaign promises of politicians. Welfare and medicare only serve a political agenda and in no way benefit the populous.
Good luck with your closing arguments,
the article also says the following.
"Currently, 36 percent of retirees rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income"
if the average social security is 1300, and they rely on nienty percent of it, their income is only 139 without social security. plus all the people who get the minimum around seven hundred have no other sources, and this also includes the disabled, whom i know many personally, with that minimum number their only income. you can argue family should try to support them, but dont try to pretend people dont rely on it.
and con is just wrong, the government made a promise. if the government passed a law to sell cars, and you paid twenty thousand for a new car, wouldn't you be pissed if they backed out? wouldn't it be a broken promise on their part? of course it would.
maybe you and me can agree that we can cut a lot of it for higher income people, but even if you cut the program in half, you are merely balancing the budget at best, and not being able to pay for the budget when the deficit soon doubles as it's expected to do.
and then there's medicare, privatizing that is akin to just taking poeple's healthcare away and letting them die.
con offers highly immoral and irresposible ideas. hence it's the most responsible thing to do to raise taxes.
People do not "depend" in any sense upon welfare.
People depend on people.
We live in a society that grows as its people develop both economically and culturally. The proposition at hand today is, at its core, a political effort to increase government involvement in the lives of low income families. Not only is this unhelpful to the current economic situation in the US, but it utterly destroys the independence of families currently receive welfare. Government, in this case, is a parasite that leeches off of the income of those who create jobs and ruins those who take jobs. This, sadly, is the current state of our country.
By voting against side proposition today, you will have voted for the alternative, which is a system in which people are provided with the opportunity to find jobs and grow as individuals. People want to maximize their own potential, so it should be government's role to let them do so. Let's not destroy the economic independence of hardworking families and make sure that we do not tax the very people who are in need of breaks.
Pertaining to the issue of medicare, side Pro has clearly not seen the horrors of a nationalized "healthcare". Patients have to wait more than 11 months for basic treatment here in Canada. The number of people thrown to the curb and left to die in this system is absolutely and irrefutably deplorable.
The only promise of a responsible government is to never do harm to its people, a promise that the current US government has not kept.
The defining question is as follows: Should man depend on man or should man depend on government?
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.