The Bush Tax cuts for the top 2% should be allowed to expire.

As we enter into this final round, the fundamental disagreements in our views are starting to be made clear. For this final round I will focus on these disagreements as opposed to individual rebuttals.Scope of this debate“Pro is asking for an alternative solution, but with all due respect, that's not the debate. My only responsibility here, is to show why we should extend all the Bush tax cuts."I believe my opening statement in this debate was clear and that it should not require further explanation. However... as Newton’s law of motion states: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Therefore when deciding on an action, the reaction must also be considered.Deciding weather we should raise taxes on the top 2% is not a question of weather it will have a positive impact on our economy, or weather it is morally or principally right for those Americans to pay more then they are paying now. To make a decision you must consider ALL factors. In this case you must consider the debt that our country faces. You must consider what programs will have to be cut as a result of making these tax cuts permanent. In the last round I showed a breakdown of where the money in our budget is allocated. These are the very programs that will have to be cut as a result of our debt.Throughout this debate Con has not made any references to this very important point. As we all know, in order to balance our budget we must spend only what we take in. So if we decide to take in $70 billion less (by not renewing these tax cuts) then we have to cut $70 billion more. This is very simple math and does not need further explanation.So first let’s ask ourselves what are we asking the top 2% to sacrifice? What is being proposed is that they pay an additional 4.6% of their income (just like they were paying under Clinton) in taxes. I do not think this will take food off of their table. Especially when you consider that the top 2% own more financial wealth (money) then the other 98% of the country combined. And this is after paying the higher tax rates many feel are “unfair”.Now let’s compare an alternative area to cut from to balance this. Medicare anyone? How about Social Security? So let’s see… should we ask Warren Buffet to give up one of his helicopters, or instead ask a couple of hundred senior citizens to reduce their healthcare benefits? OK, I realize that was an exaggeration but… well… not really.Of course in reality both of these scenarios will likely need to be true if we are going to get serious about balancing the budget, therefore I believe it is clear that the question this debate poses is should Warren Buffet and friends share in that sacrifice?Reasons to take action“We don't know what the extra money, raised by the tax increase, will be used for”This seems to be another constant theme in Con’s arguments. He asserts that government leaders need to earn the right to make these decisions, while seemingly ignoring the fact that they already have. That is why we have elections. I am sorry that Con does not have faith in our political system, but this is a democracy. Our leaders and their views are a reflection of what we the people believe. Right now the strong sentiment in this country is that we need to control our budget.Not believing in our political system is not reason to disregard our responsibility to govern. And by suggesting an action which is clearly an important step should not be taken because “We don't know what the extra money… will be used for”, Con is doing just that.Although it is a very important point that part of the problem is the fact that our political system is so divided. One side wants to raise taxes, while the other wants to cut spending. Politics unfortunately is a factor here, which means compromise is necessary. We know spending will have to be cut. There is no way around that. So if the other side does not give up something then how do we realistically compromise? What I find funny is that Con in this debate appears to be taking the no compromise position that put us in this situation in the first place, while simultaneously arguing that the government is irresponsible.“The only thing significant being discussed right now is raising the debt ceiling even higher. That doesn't sound responsible to me.”The debt ceiling will have to be raised in order to pay the bills this country has ALREADY incurred. Failure to do so is the opposite of responsible.Moral argument“Those people have worked to gain the qualifications necessary for that position, so shouldn't they be rewarded for it??”As stated, the top 2% own more financial wealth then the other 98% combined. I think they have been rewarded quite nicely. Paying an additional 4.6% of their income is really not asking a lot, especially when considering what the rest of the country will have to sacrifice.“…they are the ones who bring fans to the stadiums, it's their names that are on the jerseys.”Yes it is. But if they suddenly could not play anymore, it would be somebody else’s name on that jersey. And the fans would still go to the games. This analogy was originally used because it is a clear demonstration of what is going on in America. It is not the individual that created the revenue stream, but it is the individual that is being rewarded for it. There is nothing wrong with that, but the idea that we should not raise their taxes because they earned it fails to consider many aspects of the reality of capitalism. Once again however, I do not suggest that they should not be entitled to it, but to make a moral debate out of this point when compared to what the rest of us will all have to sacrifice through no fault of our own, I feel is absurd.Economics“…it's best to let them keep their money, and put it back in to the economy. That's where it is doing the most good.”There is no dispute that taking money out of the economy will hurt the economy. And there is no dispute that raising taxes on the top 2% is taking money out of the economy. However cutting spending is also taking money out of the economy. If the debate here is about stimulating the economy or in what would hurt the economy the least, it is important to note that according to the Congressional Budget Office Report, lowering taxes was the least simulative of the 11 options they analyzed(1). Now some will agree, some will disagree but the point is that taking money out of the economy will hurt either way. And when facing a $1.5 trillion deficit, money will have to be taken out of the economy. Suggesting that raising taxes on the top 2% is the worst thing we can do economically in light of this, is simply not true according to our own economists. ConclusionI would summarize that Con’s debate is focused on his lack of confidence in our government, belief in capitalism and his belief in maintaining jobs. I share his general beliefs but I feel that beyond the surface there is much more to it then that. I do not believe that lack of confidence in our government should dictate what we believe to be the right decision. If that is the case we might as well all give up and tell our children to start saving their lunch money cause they’re gana need it. I believe in capitalism but feel its maturity is reaching dangerous levels and is contributing to our diminishing economy. Ignoring the reality of this on the basis that “that’s capitalism” does not seem logical to me. In terms of economic arguments we seem to mostly agree except that I factored our national debt into the discussion. Con to this point, doesn’t seem to believe it should be. And the moral argument, I think speaks for itself.I’d like to thank Con for a great debate and look forward to reading his final comments. To all the readers, I think the choice is clear: Vote Pro. (1) www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10803/01-14-Employment.pdf