The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

a responsible thing to do for the USA is to increase taxes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 597 times Debate No: 81102
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




we spend 3.5 trillion a year. our deficit is like half a trillion.

we can only find insufficient things to cut. you can rail against things like the department of education or depart of housing etc, but you will find you are talking about small fries. we spend about a fifth on healthcare, a fifth on defense, another on social security, another on interest, and the rest on general governance. to oversimplify s the proportions aren't quite that and mroe could be added to say healthcare. that means cutting those departments is cutting a fraction of the budget. you could cut general governance in half, and it'd only be like ten percent of our budget. paying for the poor as the major problem is a myth as hte feds only spend not much beyond ten percent on them.

reputable sources say our debt is manageable.... but it won't be forever. we need to balance the budget. cutting entitlements ain't gonna work politically. cutting general governance will only take you so far. the poor as the problem is a myth. we've been borrowinng against our future so long that it's starting to catch up with us. it isn't all that politically feasible, but increasing taxes is the most politically feasible thing to do.
and it's not like this is without precedent. our tax rates have been much hghe on a regular basis in the past.


Thanks for the challenge, I think this will be a good debate.

Now I'm going to launch right into it. First of all, the figures presented in your opening arguments are innacurate, especially due to the fact that you are saying all of them are equal amounts.

we spend about a fifth on healthcare, a fifth on defense, another on social security, another on interest, and the rest on general governance.

Being that (according to you) we spend about 1/5 on each of the four you list, general governance is also a fifth. Now, in order to provide an accurate picture of our situation, I am going to provide the correct figures.

The following are some to pie charts on the budget-

Now first of all, the best plan is not for us take more money, its to stop spending so much of it. Now, obviously cutting only general governance in half isn't going to cut it. However, if we cut general governance, defense spending, ect. by alot, then, we will take a huge chunk out of our budget. I think that we should not only cut completely federal agencies such as the department of housing and the department of education, but cut majorly the other overblown areas of spending.

On the subject of defense, it is the largest percent, coming in at more than half (57%) it is 16 billion dollars more than the next 14 countries combined. Now many who think we should either not cut the military or even advance military spending say things like "the suggested cuts will cut our military down to 'pre-World War II' levels.". This kind of argument however is not applicable because we now have better trained and better equipped soldiers than ever before.

Not only does raising taxes hurt the everyday persons wallet, it hurts the economy as a whole. Whenever the government takes money, much of that money is not ever going back into the economy (many research funds, military spending, foreign aid, ect.) and that hurts our economy. Not to mention things such as funding for organizations that hurt the economy with more regulations.

Thanks, and back to you Pro.

Debate Round No. 1


i applaud con for his willingness to engage the sacred cow of military spending. unfortuatebly too many republicans won't touch a penny of it.

but let's see here. cut general governance in half, and cut the military in half, and we might be on to something. id estiamte that we are only balancing the budget though, not paying it back. but that could be a step in teh right direction of growing our way out of so much debt.
cutting general governance in half though is unrealistic. cutting military in half is probably too.

i give con mixed reviews but props for being willing to touch military spending.


WillRiley forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I apologize for my forfeit of the last round, however, pRo essentially conceded to me that such a plan would work. While obviously I do concede my conduct points to pro for the forfeit, I urge the voters to look at who really won the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: logical-master123// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: FF.

[*Reason for non-removal*] A voter is allowed to award conduct on the basis of a forfeit. They are not required to award any other points if they do not wish to do so.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by logical-master123 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.