taxes in the united states should be signifigantly lowered currently

I will first point out a contradiction stated by my opponent, then I will defeat my opponents case and express why I believe Con should win this debate.So my opponent stated I have one contention. But he gave put down two points. "My opponent may have typed a lot, but he had only one argument P1. All significant government expenditure is absolutely necessary. P2. Cutting taxes significantly would prevent the government from spending on these absolutely necessary government expenditures." These are not my arguments that my opponent assumed so please disregard this. Another statement by my opponent...... ." My opponent must defend how these deaths and this wasteful, unnecessary spending is absolutely necessary." I do not need to defend this because This does not account for the tax funded military In total. This statement, nor does pros contention regarding the military prove how significantly lowering taxes by the billions will help America in any way. Pros first contention...Military budget cuts......so e is stating because of military budget cuts we should significantly lower taxes? This isn't sufficient enough to affirm this resolution to happen. Here's what pro wants to do....currently "$711 billion could be cut over the next ten years by doing the following [1]: Cut back military retirement pay for new entrants. ($87 bill) Change military compensation calculation ($55 bill) Reduce Army and Marines to 505,000, a cut of 35 percent, over next 10 years ($387 bill) Reduce military personnel in Europe and Asia from 150,000 to 100,000 ($69 bil) Consolidate Defense Department commissaries and retail stores ($9 bil)" If we cut back on the first point, then retirees will be more succeptable to be lost when they get back to the states, They will have no money to live, or to obtain skills marketable in our economy. A sub machine gunner doesn't really have transferable skills. If we change military compensation, Then this would delete college funding via the military,delete their GI bill,eradicate housing,and allowance assistance that the soldiers defending us deserve, If we reduce the number of army member and marines by 35 percent, then the military is going to cut millions, How is laying people off for no reason going to better defend our country, or stimulate our economy? If we reduce military personal, then if something drastic happens in that area then we will be strategically less successful in counter operations in that area. Witch isn't justifiable. With the last point like I said we need to be taking care of our troops and not tossing them to the streets when were done with them. So lowering taxes significantly should not be done currently. Especially when were in a war against terror right now and facing economic difficulty. These cuts are not feasible. Also about military waste funding. It seems my opponent wants them to lay in their own waste at their bases and camps while there expected to be healthy and fight terrorists. Is that right? NO My opponent claims there has been more terrorist attacks since 9-11....I don't see how this furthers that taxes should be lowered but I will defeat it and move on. His source is just an opinion from a politician and isn't concrete evidence. Also logically if your in a war then obviously there's going to be conflict after the war is started. But 40 terrorist attacks have been stopped since 9-11, aviation and airport security has been bumped up. http://www.heritage.org... http://www.foxnews.com... http://themaritimeblog.com... it also established the department of homeland security witch is essential to Americas security. http://www.dhs.gov... Heres what they contribute since their establishment post 9-11Aviation Security Federal Air Marshals (TSA) Secure Flight Program Redress Control Numbers Airline Security Screening (TSA) more Aviation Security » Chemical Security Ammonium Nitrate Security Program Critical Infrastructure: Chemical Security more Chemical Security » Fraud & Counterfeit Intellectual Property Rights Center (ICE) Fraud Investigation (Secret Service) more Fraud & Counterfeit » Information Sharing State and Major Urban Area Fusion Centers Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Program National Terrorism Advisory System more Information Sharing » Infrastructure Critical Infrastructure Learning Series Critical Infrastructure more Infrastructure » Law Enforcement Operation Community Shield (ICE) National Fugitive Operations Program (ICE) United States Coast Guard (USCG) more Law Enforcement » Nuclear Security Layered Nuclear Defense Nuclear Detection Equipment Performance Nuclear Security Capabilities Development more Nuclear Security » Secure Identification US-VISIT Traveler Information more Secure Identification » My opponents next contention.....social security....it is sustainable and our economy is not about to crash because of it . Life without social security funding would be disastrous. If you get disabled you would just be left to die. When you get old and cant work anymore you will be starving,dieing, and possibly without a home, and probroly no access to adequate healthcare. So funding should continue. My opponents last point......Economic benefits. .....If we didn't have taxes then how would Medicaid, Medicare. roads, infrastructure,public education, agricultural research,law enforcement,libraries,food stamps, poor families,and the war on terror be effective programs???????? All of the governments taxation is just. Were within their jurisdiction and we pay them to protect us and to help us out when we cant help ourselves. If we were to significantly lower taxes currently then there would be disastrous results. AS I've stated earlier bush tried to lower taxes significantly. Guess what happened? a reccesion. WE don't need to affirm this resolution. So my opponent has not adequately explained the benefits of significantly lowering taxes in the sectors of....military assistance,General government expenditures,and Physical resources. Right now is not the time too lower taxes by the millions. Affirming this resolution would damage our economy more than it would benefit it. THerefore I believe this resolution should be contended. If we significantly lower taxes currently with all the problems we have. Then the American standard of life will be lowered as well. Right now while in the war against terrorism isn't the best time to lower the amount of money we give them. If we reduce this money via taxes the operations will be jeopardized. Also welfare and food stamps will be a nonexistent program because we wont have the money to help the poor families in need or to even provide them health insurance. So I find that if we were to significantly lower taxes currently it would be to much of a negative experience for our economy. Therefore I have proven the roots for negation of this resolution. Thus I believe that con should win this debate.