Polticans expensies in the UK are outrage and should be stopped.

Alright so to clear a few things up before we get down to the nitty gritty a.)contrary to the popular belief I do know what a politician is. b.) quite consistent to the popular belief, I did not know what you were referring to by political expensies, nor could I have possibly known because the opening statement given by the affirmative is so awfully vague and fragmented. any whom, I am prepared to debate the resolution as I have seen the light through the awe-inspiring analysis given by my opponent in R2. my opponent defines political expenses as "money provided by the taxpayer for politicians to cover the cost of politicians using their own money for work." from my basic understanding political expenses are used by politicians in the UK to cover costs of staying away from their main home, running their main offices, staffing costs, resources, supplies, ect. now that we actually know that this debate is about, lets get on to the real burdens and some arguments. BURDENS: 1.) the pro must show that on balance, these political expenses are in fact "outrageous" as prescribed by the resolution. 2.)the pro must show that discontinuing these expenses would be justified. until the pro can fulfill these burdens you must negate. NEGATIVE CASE 1.) Government jobs funded by government appropriations the sole reason why there are expenditures in the U.K is to cover the expenses politicians use to do their job. To not compensate these politicians for their money would be like your boss at pizza hut coming in and saying, "Hey Mr. employee, we're running low on money man, so what I'm going to need you to do is buy your own ingredients and bring them here to make pizzas for our company on your dime." and rationalizing it by saying, "we let you keep your tips!" it's ridiculous. although the salaries given to these politicians are quite handsome, they are promised compensation for resources, working locations ect. in order to do the functions of their job. the notion that the majority, or even a large amount of people are abusing their political expenditures is completely unfounded, and has in no way been substantiated by any sort of evidence given by the affirmative. I agree whole heartedly that those who are abusing the system and buying unneeded luxuries at the expense of the taxpayer wallet should be brought to justice, however to say that this represents the whole is entirely fallacious. PRO CASE PRO SAYS:"I would like you to justify why politicians can use my money to spend on items which are not work related , when the have their own salary to pay for this. they earn ï¿½55,000 a year and that is their money which they may spend on whatever luxuries they desire , they claim expenses which are spent on luxuries , but are only suppose to be used for work related costs." 1.) the vast majority politicians are not spending this money on these luxuries, and the ones who are go through a great deal of public and governmental scrutiny. for example Richard Timney, the husband of Jacqui Smith who is a member of parliament, recently admitted to the allegations of purchasing pornographic films with his wife's political expenses. As a result, Home Security and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards are now investigating Smith's previous purchases with the expenses, and she is now in jeopardy of losing her expenses altogether. If Home Security and the British parliament regulatory committees are threatening to revoke her expenses over two 5 dollars porn films it's obvious that the abuse of this system is taken quite seriously by the British parliament. the tax payers are protected, and the claim that politicians on balance are using these funds for luxuries is bogus. to conclude, my opponents case is focused upon the fallacious premise that politicians are abusing these rights, when the truth is that this is illegal, and can in no way be applied to represent politicians within the U.K. vote C