America would benefit from a new political party in power.

[1] Now, my opponent writes. .. ""my opponent stated that there have been "great times in American history . .. nation's problems. " I view this somewhat as a point that needs to be clarified further by my opponent"" I feel that my sentence already states very clearly what is meant. . But I would like to point out that my statement was misquoted. The portion of my statement in question correctly reads. .. ". .. there have been times in American history where neither of the two political parties were able to solve the nation's problems. " Are you saying you don't agree there have been times in history that the peoples voices weren't being heard properly or that major problems weren't being addresses, and the effects of that fact built pressure to form a third party? [2] My opponent states. .. "the two party system, specifically consisting of Democrats and Republicans, was able to resolve those problems then (or at least reach some kind of workable conclusion to some degree proficient enough to keep the country operating) and I see now as just another occurrence of an extremely similar, if not identical, political situation. Same game, different players. " Republicans and Democrats reach some kind of workable conclusion to some degree proficient to keep the country operating? And that is supposed to be acceptable? That's like 2 parents running a household of unemployed lazy drug addicts and a judge saying. .. " Atleast they're reaching some kind of workable conclusion to some degree proficient enough to keep the country operating. " I'm sorry. .. But that is not an acceptable form of bringing our country to it's fullest. potential. [3] How about I throw some bones to chew on. .. . Bones that support my points of course. The War on Drugs costs us $70 billion a year for the past 37 years, but drugs remain as available today as in 1971. Why does Congress ignore viable options while continuing to waste our money for its failed drug war? Do both parties pride themselves about their $700 billion trade deficit that they facilitate annually by doing nothing to stop it? Do they brag about the $9 trillion national debt they bequeathed upon our citizens for decades to come? Can they stand tall as they rebuild Iraq but watch Katrina-ravaged New Orleans slog through the unending rubble of devastated neighborhoods of our poorest Americans? Such profound incongruence! How about 14 million unemployed Americans while 20 million illegal aliens depress and wreak havoc on our wages and jobs across America? How do they fabricate, "Illegal aliens do the jobs that Americans won't do at slave wages…. " While we give billions of dollars to Iraq–and thousands of our soldiers' lives, how can our President tolerate 1.3 million homeless people in America with 13 million children living below the poverty level? While they send over 572,000 troops to 700 bases worldwide, how can the allow our borders to stand wide open to an invading armada of illegal aliens? How does it make sense to maintain 35,000 troops on Korea's border, but not on our own? Is it right for our Congress to force American taxpayers to shell out $338 billion dollars annually to pay for education, medical care, language translation, food, assisted housing and incarceration costs for people who broke our laws to enter our country and break our laws daily by remaining here? What rationale does the president use for his lack of upholding the U. S. Constitution? Why would Congress uphold and increase H-1B, H-2B, L-1 and many other visas that undermine and steal jobs away from millions of Americans? Why would those we elect to serve us enslave us? Why would they outsource, insource and offshore our jobs to third world countries in order to give our own corporations greater profits at the expense of our citizens? [4] My opponent states. .. "Idealism, attitude, and policy is only half the battle - the main point that would have to be change between the new party and the party it replaced would be the new party's ability to co-exist and communicate with the party of opposition, and I frankly see no evidence supporting nor confirming how that would have even the slightest bit of happening. How would America benefit from a brand new party in power, inferior to its predecessor in terms of experience on a political stage and activeness in the politics of the United States, when the same problems that existed with the previous two parties continue to be roadblocks? " I would like to address some of my opponents points here. This paragraph assumes and falls short in it's assumption. Just because you do not see evidence of it's happening, does not mean that it could not or should not happen. One of my main points in this debate is that a new party is needed. Considering the above statement and also considering my own observations on the lack of positive communication between the two parties. .. It is in my firm opinion that America would benefit from a new party that is formed with a vision for positive communication in all of it's relations with the opposing party. It is not hard to see how the parties have focused on belittling one another, instead of focusing on important policy issues that are crucial to our Nation's future. I will not list evidence of this belittling between the parties as this fact is clearly seen by any reputable follower of current politics. Belittling has always been a part of politics, but with a focus on policy that has been lost in recent years past. [5] My opponent asks. .. "How would a party that was just formed, and whose experience in infantile in nature compared to the history and legacy of the party it just (miraculously) replaced, be able to change a climate a party with a hundred-odd years of attempts could not? " And my response is. .. How could this new party NOT change the climate? With a new party in power the whole game changes and with the game changing, everything will have to be thrown on the table to see how the new party and the old party measure up in comparison. This comparison with the new party alone forces pressure on both parties to prove which side can handle the issues and problems better. A new opponent freshens the game and calls for re-evaluation in all respects. The fact that both parties have been the only parties in power for over 100 years and that our country is faced with these current perilous circumstances, is evidence in itself that neither party is efficient in running our country. If either party's leadership is so efficient, our nation would not be in such a critical state. Good leadership can find an efficient solution to any problem and given America's wealth in power, population, and resources. .. Any form of leadership has the proper tools to find efficient solutions in solving any of our nations problems. The problem lies with America's current political parties in control these tools, and their inefficiency in using them properly. I remind voters that my opponent clearly agrees that both parties have been in power for well over 100 years. It is in my firm opinion that both of these parties (Republicans and Democrats) have had there chance in using the great tools America has to offer. .. Tools that any political party could only dream of accessing. .. And both have failed to use them efficiently. Our current problems in America are evidence of this fact. These current problems are the children of all the policy choices that Republicans and Democrats have made in their pasts. .. This fact alone gives weight to the fact that it is time for a new party. It's time to take out of power what is not working. .. It's time to let a new party prove what it can do. .. It's time for a new America.