The US should raise it's Debt Ceiling, with or without concessions

My opponent’s arguments are extremely contradictory and leave me to question his understanding of the subject. He first argues that we should not raise the debt ceiling right now, implying that by not doing so Congress and the Obama administration will be forced to make the cuts necessary to make our budget sustainable. In his next paragraph he contends that we should eliminate the debt ceiling entirely, leaving no mechanism in place whatsoever to keep our budget in check. Con then points to my argument about the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling. He says that because these sources come from the government that they can be dismissed as “just politics”. Questions for Con: Who is supposed to know what will happen to our government in this situation, if not our government? Second, what would be the purpose of making up false DIRE predictions to get the debt ceiling raised? Third, how do you dismiss common sense logic that the US government running out of money would have a serious effect on the economy? In Cons next point he suggests that we repudiate our debt and not pay it back. This statement is a rebuttal by itself. Con then argues that “none of these things will happen”. He gives set of facts, suggestions, and predictions with no source that I dismiss as being completely ludicrous. Our debt holders will bail us out? Debt forgiveness? Con should explain his case in detail and provide sources. Military spending I did not see an overall message here, just a bunch of statements that I find… well… I’ll let the voters decide “My opponent says that military cuts wouldn't solve the problem all by itself. That's fine; we don't need to solve the problem all right now” Don’t need to solve the problem right now? But your suggesting that we not raise the debt ceiling, how do you propose we pay for it? “I don't see why I have to pay Social Security taxes when there's no way I'm going to collect anything from Social Security. Just abolish it.” Just abolish Social Security? “My opponent never proves normatively that the cessation of the any of the government programs he cites would be bad.” I have to prove to you that abolishing Social Security would be bad? “In fact, the free market would move in to replace these services, stimulating the US economy, which again turns my opponent's argument.” So cutting government programs will stimulate the economy? “And if the dollar collapsed, the US would just revert to using gold and silver coins as legal tender, as some states are starting to do, which will eliminate the boom and bust cycle, according to Austrian economics, and make the economy more stable.” So if the dollar collapsed it would make the economy more stable? And which states are starting to do this? Let’s Move On… So as mentioned in my opening statements, my contention is that regardless of what happens from today to Aug 2nd, by that day the US should raise its debt ceiling. In response to Cons inept rebuttal that “its governments job to scare us” I will explain it in layman’s terms. The US is just like a person. It has bills to pay like anyone else. Imagine the following scenario: You make $2,000 a month, and your bills (rent, electric, car payments etc…) come to $1,800 a month. Suddenly you have an emergency and have to put $10,000 on your credit card. Your credit card payments are now $200 month making your income and bills break even. But there is one major problem… How do you eat? How do you put gas in your car to get to work? The easy answer is to cut your spending. So does that mean you stop paying rent? Do you get rid of your car which gets you to work? I suppose you could live in the dark, but that still won’t be enough. I think the obvious answer in this scenario is to get a second job to balance your budget, however that takes time. And everyday is another day you still have to eat, put gas in your car, etc. So in the meantime you will have to put some of your expenses on your credit card until you get your budget straight so that you can avoid having your car repossessed, getting evicted, or have your credit ruined for years. So as important as it is to get yourself straight in the long run, in the short run you have 2 choices; keep yourself floating or drown. The problem with this analogy is that a person can stop paying rent and still live for a while without getting evicted, or not have their car repossessed right away. So hypothetically you can dig yourself in a hole, but get yourself out of it later and have it not really affect you. The US government can not continue operating if it does not have money. Everyday the government has to pay bills. Military salaries, Medicare costs, Social Security payments, etc. Without sufficient funds to meet the expenses we have ALREADY incurred (which is what Con is suggesting) we would have to literally pick and choose who gets paid. Should my sister in the air force not get paid despite having already served? Should we tell grandma that she’ll have to figure out how to survive without her prescription drugs we already promised to pay for? Should we not issue anymore tax refunds to people who were overtaxed last year? At this point the US will have to cut ALL discretionary programs, and 70% of all mandatory programs.(1) That’s 70%. One of the major issues with Cons argument is that he doesn’t seem to think government spending has a real purpose. I would love to go into why spending is a real thing that affects real people, but I am running out of space so I will have to trust that the voters have an understanding of this regardless of their feelings about the need to cut (which I do share). I will leave this link for Con in case he would like to suggest how he would like to see the US make these cutshttp://www.whitehouse.gov... The best argument I feel against my contention is that “now is the time”. As Con pointed out the US has a long history of continuing to live beyond our means and it is silly to think that trend will just stop. Without drastic action (like Cons contention) we will never solve this problem. My argument is this; Now is not the time. The time would have been back in the early 2,000’s when W. was turning record surpluses into record deficits by passing tax cuts there was no need to pass. Or back in the 80’s when although we did face recessions, they were no where near what we face today. Those who say now is the time, suggest that the best time to resort to catastrophic measures to fix this is when the country is recovering from the worst economic disaster in our history besides the great depression. I would argue that this is not the best time. Summary: Failure to raise the debt ceiling would result in catastrophic consequences that would affect the US for many years. Even if it is a short term issue that will be fixed by a vote to raise it quickly afterward, much of the damage will be done as the US interest rates will increase which will further add to our deficits, also investors will loose confidence in our ability to meet our obligations which will have long terms affects on our country’s economic growth. This would be a highly irresponsible decision and is inconceivable to me that anyone would suggest that this is the best course of action. I understand and share the sentiment that the US has raised it’s debt ceiling for many years and this practice needs to stop but that can only be done responsibly through the budget process which, as has been my contention from the start, is a separate conversation. Those who “hold the debt ceiling hostage” to achieve their political goals will have a choice by Aug 2nd as to weather they should shoot that hostage. Con is voting to do so. But I say that if they want to have a serious conversation about fixing the country’s problems, then they should leave their threats of collapsing the countries economy at home. Vote Pro. (1) www.treasury.gov/.../Debt%20Limit%20Myth%20v%20Fact%20FINAL.pdf