McCain's plans for, taxes, heathcare, war, and entitlements are detrimental for the middle-class.

My opponent begins his primary refutation with the disputation of the definition of the middle class. While this is a great place to start, I would like to respectfully call to his attention that this debate is solely about McCain's tax, health care and social security plans having a "detrimental" affect on the middle class. My opponent then seeks to broaden the definition of the middle class to mean anyone who makes from 40,000 to 249,999 dollars a year. I would like to bring to the awareness of voters not to be confused by this interpretation of the "Middle Class" My opponent would like you to believe that: The "Lower Middle Class" (33% of the population) + The "Upper Middle Class" (15% of the population) = The Middle Class (Being supposedly 48% of the population). However my opponent has made the dangerous (and incorrect) assumption that 48% of Americans fall into the 40,000 dollar to 249,999 dollar salary range. As is shown in my information (that has gone un-refuted by my opponent) 48% of the population (starting at 40,000 dollars) makes approximately 40,000 to 110,000. Not 40,000 to 249,999 dollars as my opponent has incorrectly inferred. So until my opponent can clear up his true refutation of my definition of the middle class (which I kindly suggest he not do in the closing rebuttal of this debate), I will be generous and will accept his previous range of 48% of the population being those households that earn anywhere from 40,000 to 110,000 dollars. I additionally do not, and would like to suggest that voters do not, accept wikipedia as a valid source in this argument. Next my opponent goes onto refute the issue of wealth redistribution. His primary argument that McCain's tax policy is redistribution (See definition above) is to link him to the current unpopular president, George Bush. Again I would like the voters to be aware that this debate is strictly this: "It is Resolved: John McCain's tax plan, health care plan, and his views on Social Security will not be detrimental to the current Middle Class. Additionally I resolve that the totality of John McCain's plan will not redistribute more wealth to the top 1-5% of America. " No where in this resolution (or in my opponents parameters for that matter) does it state that this debates purpose was to show the resemblance/dissemblance of John McCain to George Bush or John McCain to Barrack Obama. This debate's purpose is to analyze the effects of John McCain's tax, health care, and social security policies and to determine whether they be detrimental to the middle class. Therefore I would like to politely suggest to my opponent that he leave out comparisons of John McCain to other political figures unless they are strictly relevant to the resolution. Next my opponent goes onto state that: "a blog by Jared Bernstein (Google him if you do not know who he is), he writes, "In 2001, when the richest one percent of households held 18% of all income. " Well I don't doubt that Jared Bernstein is a brilliant writer, his blogs and his factual evidence (unless cited by a repudiated source) are to be left out of this debate. Blogs and opinions of writers are to be kept out of this debate unless they are backed by information. My opponents examples add nothing to the content of this debate and further confuse the reader as to the true nature and substance of the debate. Next my opponent states a source (that is a Left - Leaning "News-Blog Video Community") that states that the richest 1% hold 23% of the US income. I again do not see the relevancy to the refutation of the idea that wealth redistribution is occurring. I also do not count this article as a valid source. However if I did, this information would not be relevant at all seeing as how it provides no information that wealth >>>>redistribution<<<<< (and I encourage all voters to refer to the undisputed definition in (R2)) will occur under John McCain's Tax Plan. Next my opponent continues to the issue of taxes. A --Taxes-- I would like to start off by stating that $319 may seem like a "dismal amount" however to many people, that is a significant sum. When you consider that the average household earning $50,000 currently pays $6,698 in tax, and you add the 5,000 household tax credit. You can easily see that the middle class household pays only $1379 in tax that is not refunded directly to them. . http://www.moneychimp.com... Next my opponent again switches the focus of the argument to the top (1-5%) which seems to be a common theme he is attempting to instill. However again, I would like to remind the voters that this debate is based on the middle class. Additionally my opponent brings up a completely irrelevant issue that lacks both any substance both factually and logically. It does not pertain to the core argument. If my opponent wishes to make a point that McCain has tax breaks that in some way give oil companies large tax breaks that have a detrimental impact on the middle class then I would like to ask him to provide more substance and information instead of rhetorical questions with no backing to them. I also don't understand the reason behind subtracting 300 dollars due to the record profits of the oil industry. Both of which have absolutely have nothing to do with McCain's tax policy, or the current presidents for that matter. B -- Health care -- I'm aware of what the average cost of a family health plan is. The point of this debate isn't to show that McCain's plan doesn't foot the entire bill of National Health care, but that it does make it more affordable and is not "detrimental". Middle Class Americans who are currently uninsured would have 5000 to pay for health care, making it significantly more affordable. Additionally the average employee who is covered by their employer pays $8,824. This tax credit would allow the consumer to have to pay much less (approximately 2000) then currently if their employer stopped covering them or if their employer continued to cover them, then they would have to pay 3,824 for a family plan both of which are improvements to the current system. . http://www.nytimes.com... I do not see (nor have been shown) any factual evidence supporting that this plan will "only benefits big corps not the American Middle Class" C. Entitlements Many presidents will come and go before most of the middle class reaches retirement. Additionally you still have not shown how McCain's policy on entitlements negatively impacts the middle class. I would like to remind voters that I do not have the burden of proof. By making the resolution my opponent does and must prove that McCain's policies have a negative impact. Something which of yet he has done. I do not see how the >>>option<<< to invest in private accounts (plural meaning many different kinds including Treasury Bills, Money Markets, Bank Accounts, Bond Markets, Stock Market) is detrimental seeing as how most Americans do so through 401ks. Additionally I ask you to look at the long term historical growth which is currently between 10 - 9% of the S&P 500 well above historical inflation. . http://stockcharts.com... . http://www.simplestockinvesting.com... I would like to thank my opponent for his well thought out debate and would like to politely request that in the future he adhere more strictly to the resolution and use more factual evidence. I would like to send him my respects as a debater and thank him for a challenging rebuttal. I look forward to his closing arguments.