Should governments be obliged to borrow money to create new infrastructure

I would like to thank my opponent.

BOP is assumed split since the instigator is Con, so 50/50 BOP

Government should be obliged to borrow [for the debate I insist these means assume debt of some kind through treasury bonds] money to create new infrastructure when voters want it and through their representatives pass legislation. Con states, “Governments should not be forced to lend money because it would jeopardize their financial position. But clearly the debate resolution says, obliged to borrow, so Con’s point that the government is being forced is a canard. Who is forcing the government? I would assume the representatives and the people that elected them. Infrastructure is not only a good investment; it helps both private business and individuals by providing contracts, jobs, and wages. Moreover, in the United States out infrastructure is crumbling, so in reality we need to renew our investment in roads, bridges, sewer systems and all the rest.

My opponent forfeited the last round but I will continue to make my argument. First, public infrastructure as The Economist notes in a recent article is essential to our economy, or as they nicely summarize it: “Ports, power lines and schools are essential to the smooth running of the economy.”[1] Not only is public infrastructure vital and necessary for the economy but not doing poses problems, if not potential threats to the country. As Senator Cory Booker recently highlighted in an interview with NBC News the Amtrak derailment recently could likely have been prevented had the nation spend the time and money on fixing an ageing rail system.[2] At the same time, this is going on, other advanced economies are putting money and resources into building high-speed rail, including China.[3] The United States should be competing with China in this area because it is a benefit to citizens, the public and provides a boost to the entire economy. My opponent has failed to dispute any of these points. Please consider voting for Pro.

I extend my argument.

Reasons for points:

Pro should get conduct points for Con’s forfeiture.

Pro should get sources for using sources that were relevant to the argument.

Spelling and grammar tie

Arguments should go to Pro for advancing an argument without any of Pro’s points being undermine

Vote Pro!