On the following proposed "economic stimulus" plan

I do appreciate his articulate responses and a complete lack of rhetoric in any of his arguments. This one was enjoyable, and I thank him. I will not present new points but will solidify my previous contentions. I will conclude by showing why I focused on a few points and ignored others. After accepting this debate, I took a list with as many regulatory agencies as I could find, looked at their functions and crossed them out, removed minimum wage, the fiat money system, added the new amendment to the Constitution, removed barriers to full out free trade with other countries, removed all taxes, and added the national sales tax along with a state sales tax, etc. I then made up several scenarios and plugged them into this new government to see how they would pan out. The biggest problems occurred when I removed the regulations concerning the work place, child labor, etc and found that the Union would take over some of these roles. And found that the removal of regulations concerning land use would deprive future generations from the economic benefit of protected land, land protected as national parks and land protected by environmental regulations. The only point I will concede concerns the gold standard. Under my opponent's new government, I can find no economic reason to not institute the gold standard and a Constitutional amendment would do the job. I in no way advocate this standard under our current system. (See post script) I did not drop any of my arguments, I just presented them within the provided governmental framework, not the current one. When examining large scale policy changes like the ones my opponent provides, we must examine the relationship between all the new areas to see what we find. I ask voters to view my challenges in light of this new government and not in the context of our current system. As a whole, my opponent's plan must be rejected, and I do urge him to reconsider his economic proposal in light of the contentions I offered. I concluded that an unregulated Union is disastrous and history supports me on this conclusion and that unregulated use of land has enormous potential to destroy any future, or long term, benefit derived from the land. [3] [4] The cost of this clean up was enormous. [4] Nowhere did I say most businessmen only look at the short term investments, but all we need is one dimwit to ruin land and the future use is gone. Natural resources, like land, are not the same as a poor business venture that can be fixed by reusing the building. Once land is decimated, we don't get it back for a long time, if at all. All economic benefits from the private ownership of national parks without the regulations keeping the area as a park do not hold when the area is bull dozed by a logging company. Future use is in jeopardy without the regulations. I see no economic benefit to allowing a private company to strip land or exhaustively mine an area without regard to environmental damage and, consequently, future economic use. I showed how my opponent's plan removes the human capital gained by public education, and that removal of the public system allowed parents to avoid sending their children to school and instead use them for child labor; cultural arguments aside, we have done this before and the system was modified by regulations, thankfully. I did not write why a child would not enter into a contract for private schooling without her parent's consent as 5 and 6 year old children cannot enter into contracts. [1] I saw no reason to present the obvious. (My opponent specifically maintained current contract law) My opponent's position that child labor would be non existent in a wealthy country like the US does not address the fact that most wealthy nations have regulations against child labor and regulations for mandatory school attendance. Here is great report for future reading. [2] My opponent's plan to move the OIG, a function within the DoL, contradicts his position as the regulations are gone and the OIG investigates violations of these now nonexistent regulations. My opponent presented no argument to consolidate departments and their regulatory powers; his plan eliminates them; therefore, I only addressed the elimination, not consolidation of any aspect of a regulatory agency. Any single point in my opponent's argument assigned to our present government is irrelevant. I in no way concede any point would work in our present state as that was not the debate topic presented to me. I showed the consequences of a few and found they would be detrimental to the economy and presented those within the framework of his plan. In order to address the hundreds of agencies or even all the unique points of the new government is not possible in this format. My opponent can find no joy in claiming his plan works on balance as the plan was presented to me as a whole and all my analysis took place in that framework. Conclusion: President wjmelements plan to allow an unregulated union to control labor, combined with the elimination of protections for future economic land use and removal of the legal requirement mandating parents to provide early age education for children, hampering future earning potential, is not economically beneficial to the United States, Notwithstanding other contentions. I urge a vote for Con. Very Truly Yours, SherlockMethod Former Policy Adviser to the President. (Anyone hiring, as I am sure to lose my job after this one. ) 1. . http://www.chicagofamilylawblog.com... 2. . http://www.katarinatomasevski.com... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.nytimes.com... 5. . http://www.epa.gov... P. S. I have some room so as a side note I recommend the book, "The Political Economy of International Relations" by Robert Gilpin. This book supports nothing I said, but it does provide some interesting theory concerning the gold standard in relation to the welfare state and the warfare state. The book was assigned in my 500 level courses, but you enjoy Wealth of Nations so you should have no problems with it.