Republican policies are more economically sound than Democratic policies

Thanks for accepting Brody! I appreciate your interest in this topic, especially as a 14-year-old. It is good to see the voters of tomorrow participating in policy conversations. (Not that I am some wise old owl, I'm only 19 myself).Just as a side note, many debates on this site use the first round to merely accept the debate. Please notice that many debates created, including this one, will contain a first round argument with a line such as: "Please use the first round to acknowledge and accept the scope of argument and challenge respectively. The arguments will begin in round 2."Just keep an eye out for this in the future. I will be arguing as if you hadn't included any arguments in the first round, and will respond to your previously stated arguments in round three if you choose to include them in your round 2 arguments.With that being said, let's get to it.Taxation:Here is a popular talking point that I have heard time and time again:"Republicans are trying to give a massive tax cut to the rich" This is a very misleading statement that is used to incite an emotional response in the Democratic political base, and I concede, it works remarkably well. While this statement is somewhat true, calling the tax cut "huge" might be hyperbole. Let's take a look at the "dreaded", "mean", and "unfair" Donald Trump tax plan. (And yes, I know he isn't a mainstream Republican, but his tax plan is very Reaganesque)Trump's plan would reduce taxes on lower class individuals who make $10,300 - $19,525 a year from 10% to 0%, would reduce taxes on individuals who make $19,525 - $29,000 a year from 15% to 0%, would reduce taxes on lower middle-class individuals who make $29,000 - $47,750 a year from 15% to 10%, and would reduce taxes on mainstream middle-class individuals who make between $47,750 - $54,000 a year from 25% to 10%. To save space, I will just jump to the income level that many Democrats like to cherry-pick out of his plan. The full chart will be included as a source. Trump's plan would reduce taxes on individuals who make 423,500 and over from 39.6% to 25%.What most people are shocked to hear is that Trump's tax plan still requires the very wealthy to pay more. It still puzzles me how the popular argument that the rich aren't paying their fair share carries any weight at all. Trump's plan is not a flat tax, similar to something Ted Cruz was proposing. Let's look at a few situations.Average Joe makes $47,000 a year.Donald Trump makes an estimated $476,000,000 a year.Average Joe would have to pay a total of $4,700 in income taxes at a 10% tax rate.Donald trump would have to pay a whopping $119,000,000 in taxes at a 25% tax rate.Does that still seem unfair?Let's get this out of the way at the beginning. YES, the most wealthy Americans would see a tax decrease by 14.6%, but perhaps more importantly, the most struggling Americans would see a tax cut of up to 15%. Also, a chunk of the middle class would see a 15% reduction on their taxes. This is hardly an "unfair" or "mean" proposal. Arguing that a tax cut for the rich hurts the lower and middle classes is a non-sequitur.On this same subject, I would also like to argue that giving the most wealthy Americans a tax cut is in no way an apocalyptic event for the other economic classes. What do wealthy people have? Money. What do people do with money? They spend it. When people receive a tax cut, and this applies to all economic classes, their so called "disposable income" (which is basically the amount of money they have left after bills and taxes are paid) increases. This, in turn, enables people to go out into the world and dump their disposable income back into the economy in exchange for goods and services, generating more tax revenue from the profits that businesses receive. When the wealthy receive a tax cut and their disposable income rises, the basic principle remains the same, but the positive results can become magnified. Wealthy people have the money to invest in other companies, or to completely start up new companies altogether. These investments increase the size of the entities that they invest in, enabling them to grow, which in turn requires the entity to hire more workers, which helps the unemployment rate fall, generates more taxable income from the new workers, which then meets up with my "disposable income" argument earlier in this paragraph. Raising taxes on the upper class could hinder economic growth by reducing the "disposable income" that could be dumped back into the economy.Entitlement Programs (specifically Social Security in this round):The Social Security system should never have been implemented, at least not in the way it was. The entire basis upon which it was formed was flawed. Let me explain.Social Security was created to immediately start helping the elderly and other qualifying individuals from the day it went into effect. Unfortunately, there is a serious flaw in this system. There is a huge hole in funding between the elderly and the young. This hardly creates Social Security. When a worker in the US has money taken out of a paycheck to go towards Social Security, that money isn't allocated to that individual. It has been allocated to someone else. Basically, that money was spent even before it existed.What should have been done? Eliminate the hole. The system should have been set up so that all money paid by the employee and the employer should be stamped with the employee's name, ensuring that the funds will be around when the individual retires. In essence, the individual would get the money back that he/she and their employer specifically paid into the system with, ensuring that there would always be enough money in the system. Yes, the US currently has a surplus in the Social Security system, that is true. But, when all of the Baby Boomers begin to retire, many economists project that the surplus reserves in the program will quickly dry up, leaving either the government to flip the bill, or leaving individuals who had been paying into the program their entire lives without the benefits that they were promised. Social Security in Context:Many point out that Social Security was enacted by FDR as part of his New Deal legislation to combat the hardships of the Great Depression. However, the decision to enact a policy such as social security that was simply convenient at the time with little to no regard to the implications that may come down the road is very short sided, and arguably irresponsible. Other avenues should have been exploredI will stop there for this round. I look forward to my opponents opening arguments!Sources:Trump's tax plan break-down: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...