Bernie Sanders would be a better president than libertarian, Gary Johnson

Pro begins by saying that because the richest people have expanded their wealth the most at the fastest rate, the fact that EVERYONE'S wealth has increased is somehow irrelevant. That is false for reasons I have explained in the last round. Capitalism inspires productivity and growth, which is why the poor among us today are far better off than people in third world countries that are stagnant. My opponent also claims that the wealth created is somehow thanks in part to social programs like Social Security. However that is backwards logic that doesn't make any sense. In order for government social programs to exist, there must be government funds to pay for them. Government funds = revenue that is collected by tax payers. However tax payers wouldn't have any wealth to tax unless they were productive in the private sector! The public sector could not exist without prosperity in private industry. If private capitalistic endeavors were not successful, there would be no wealthy or middle class people to tax in order to fund programs for the poor. Therefore Pro's supposition that social programs are somehow responsible for wealth creation is not supported. In fact they are parasitic and dependent on people's wealth; they certainly do not generate wealth (only improved welfare). Pro points out that Johnson wants to cut Social Security (not eliminate it entirely) which I've explained is fiscally responsible. He says that Bernie claims to keep SS while not increasing the deficit, which doesn't make sense and is not possible according to the economists I've cited in the last round. Moreover Bernie has planned to increase taxes not just on the rich but on EVERYONE (by his own admission) to help fund some of his endeavors [1]. How is it helpful to provide us with things we pay for anyway via tax? The same thing could be accomplished (with more efficiency, better quality and cheaper) in the private market. Estimates say that Sanders' plan would raise taxes on Americans by around 34 percent [2]. Bernie Sanders tweeted that women and not the government own their bodies, while failing to acknowledge that tax payers (not the government) own their wealth and property. Therefore, the same courtesy of recognizing one's personal autonomy when it comes to their bodies ought to be valued across the board. Gary Johnson believes in people's liberty to make personal choices about their own health care, security and finances - whereas Sanders believes everyone is monetarily responsible for everyone else for the sake of "morality." But there is nothing moral about theft. If people were really moral, they would volunteer their OWN money to charitable causes - not forcefully steal it from others and pretend that is somehow a moral endeavor. Bernie's economic proposals are not only immoral but counterproductive insofar as benefitting the economy or Middle-Class America's pocketbook. Pro's source on New Mexico's subsidy intake from 2014 is irrelevant to Gary Johnson who presided over the state from 1995 to 2003. In the last round I asked if the rich are moving their funds off-shore to avoid paying taxes NOW, why should we believe they will have an incentive to not do the same (or more) of that when taxes are even higher?! Pro has not provided an answer. In addition to moving their money overseas, the wealthy are moving the jobs they create there as well which of course is their right; jobs do not inherently belong to Americans. A competitive labor market (paying the lowest wages possible) is a key component of a good business plan. Bernie Sanders is anti-progressive on his immigration stance [3] and falsely believes that immigrants hurt the American economy and take our jobs [4]. However Johnson's amnesty proposal to working immigrants (without criminal offenses; he believes in a 1-strike-you're-out policy) is superior to Bernie's because it recognizes the positive impacts that immigration has on the economy [5]. Bernie Sanders has proven to be totally illiterate when it comes to anything related to finances, with the exception of highlighting cronyism in politics (especially banking). Yet as I said, Bernie wants to curiously give corrupt politicians even more power, influence and money to waste tax payer funds rather than empower citizens to find or create better solutions. My opponent has completely dropped my argument that Social Security is in fact a Ponzi Scheme. A Ponzi Scheme is an operation in which money is transferred from one party to another party by a third party outsider. The money received from the new investor(s) is used to cover the supposed gains on investments from the previous investors. A Ponzi scheme will eventually fail because the alleged earnings will be less than the money promised to the investors. Indeed this is precisely how Social Security works. There is a decreasing number of investors (new workers entering the labor force) and an increase number of people attempting to receive retirement benefits. According to the 2011 Social Security report by the government, SS funds will be exhausted by about 2036 [6]. Yet despite this problem, Bernie wants to "strengthen and expand" Social Security while Gary Johnson seeks responsible and pragmatic reform. For example he would raise the retirement age (which makes sense since Americans are living longer) and cut taxes so people have more money to invest in their retirement as opposed to relying on SS which might not be there. On the environment, Pro claims it's untrue that corporations would pass the cost of taxes onto their consumers. However that is absolutely true and Pro has not proven otherwise. Indeed because businesses need to operate within a certain profit margin in order to be successful, when their operating costs rise, the only way they can maintain that profit margin is to charge their customers more [8]. And finally Pro claims that some environmental protection that has been passed led to a decrease in pollution. But my position wasn't that legislation would have no impact; it's that the impact ought to be valued on a cost-benefit analysis. As I said, Gary Johnson recognizes that markets and private property rights can help protect nature. The worst pollution often happens on land owned by "the people" - by government. Since no one person derives direct benefit from this property, it's often treated carelessly. Worse things may happen when government indifference combines with the greed of unrestrained businesspeople, like when the U.S. Forest Service lets logging companies cut trees on public land. "Markets even solve environmental problems in places where environmentalists assume they cannot, such as oceans and other property that can't be carved up into private parcels. For example environmental bureaucrats usually say (to make sure fishermen don't overfish and destroy the stock of fish) we will set a quota for every season. That command-and-control approach has been the standard policy. So bureaucrats regulate the fishing season. They limit the number of boats, their size, and how long they may fish. The result: fishing is now America's most dangerous job. Fishermen race out in all kinds of weather to get as many fish as they can in the narrow time window allowed by regulators. They try to game the system to make more money. Sometimes they still deplete the fish stock. But in places like New Zealand and Iceland ... we've created individual fishing quotas, which are tradable, which are bankable, which give people an incentive to invest in their fisheries." Because the fisherman 'owns' his fishing quota, he is careful to preserve it. He doesn't overfish because he wants 'his' fish to be there next year. The moral of the story: when possible, let markets and property protect nature. That avoids the Tragedy of the Commons" [9]. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...