Reducing the defecit should be the United States primary economic concern

What do you define as "idealistic"? In response to my opponent's questions: 1.) "I would like for you to point out instances in American history where we were prevented from doing something because of this mounting debt?" Well, the answer is quite simply never. However, never in American history has the United States Federal Government debt been so massive. So this question is flawed, for it does not take into account that fact. 2.) Yes. 3.) The resolution does not ask to solve for deficit spending--it only asks to provide a rationale as to why the United States government should reduce the deficit. This question is irrelevant. 4.) I am not aware of any such circumstances, however your question is biased. From an objective point of view it would be absurd to limit the bankruptcy of a country on the premise you have set because the fact still exists--Greece, a sovereign nation, is bankrupt and requires a bail out from the EU. The circumstances are relevant only insofar as the fact that Greece has failed economically. 5.) I did not disagree with this statement, I was pointing out that speaking in absolutes is ineffective and incorrect. Your arguments were based on absolute statements. My opponent's case: Contention I: Either the United States Federal Government or Banks must start lending. My opponent then states "if the Government does not use deficit spending to bail out major corporations such as AIG, Ford, Chrysler, GM, and several major banks...economic experts say that 'our imaginations can't even begin to fathom the shape of our economy.'" First of all, the government already has commenced the bail out, so deficit spending has already taken place with regard to the most recent economic recession. If this did not happen, the banks would have failed and this country would have experienced a depression worse than the Great Depression of the 1930's. But why did the bail out have to occur? Why did deficit spending have to happen in order to save our economy? It was because of Moral Hazard, the fact that the senior management of large lending corporations, such as AIG, Bear-Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, were able to take large risks and not face the consequences of their actions. Companies gave out loans to toxic assets, made huge amounts of money and created the housing bubble which burst after certain policies by the Fed were instituted. In essence, the most recent economic recession occurred because of flawed government policies and banks giving out loans. If that put the United States into a recession then why should banks start lending again? But that still leaves the government. I asked my opponent if he feels deficit spending is mandatory for economic growth and he responded it was not, and that deficit spending was necessary depending only on the situation. As in the case of the most recent economic recession, deficit spending was mandatory to save the economy. But now the mounting debt is continuing to increase because of the interests of the few, not many. And my opponent conceded to the fact that the interests of few does not represent the interest of many. Refer to my Contention I. Contention II: The public debt simply increases from one year to the next. I do not see how this contention is relevant to the resolution, because the resolution does not ask to argue about the public debt. It states the "deficit" and "United States primary economic concern." This means that the United States Federal Government should focus on reducing the mounting deficit. The private sector is wholly different from this. My opponents second contention will need some explanation if it is to be considered any further in the debate round. My case: Contention III Stands. Contention II: "Unfortunately, we're now running annual deficits at a level where deficits very much do matter — as the ongoing crisis in Greece so vividly illustrates. The Congressional Budget Office says that after borrowing nearly 10 percent of GDP in 2009, we will borrow even more in 2010, and just a little less in 2011. Thereafter, we're expected to cut our deficits — but they'll still be 4 to 5 percent, which is bigger than anything we saw under George W. Bush and bigger than all but two of the deficits tallied under Reagan. The bills for Medicare and Social Security are finally coming due as the obligations exceed payroll-tax receipts. And this administration, like every administration before it, is unwilling to either make the necessary cuts or raise the necessary taxes. Deficits are starting to matter. A lot. Both politically and economically." [SOURCE: http://web.ebscohost.com...]. "'We can't just grow, we can't inflate, we can't cut or tax our way out of the problem. Everything has to be on the table,' said David Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office and now president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation..." [SOURCE: http://web.ebscohost.com...]. Yet Obama, like many G20 leaders, is on tough political terrain. Faced with voter anxiety about a weak economy and unemployment near 10%, he has asked Congress for more stimulus money to spark stronger growth. That spending, however, could complicate his administration's longer-term efforts to reduce a $1.5 trillion deficit, which has fueled voter anger, symbolized by the Tea Party movement. "That's the grand tension of the G20 nations: How do you restore growth while cutting the deficits that can prove very self-defeating?" says Kati Suominen of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. "This is the fine balancing act. And there are no easy answers." [SOURCE: http://web.ebscohost.com...]. Contention I Stands. Now, it does, at least.