Presidential Debate: Walle_Ras v. Tejretics

I thank walle_ras for accepting. Stance My basic stance shall be social liberal and economic conservative. My fiscal policy shall be center-right, in shifting to a Bradford X-tax, lessening the minimum wage and abolishing the very low fiscal stimulus. My aim will be to allow the Federal Reserve to keep very low rates of inflation, around 1-2%, and no deflation. My opponent has stated that he will *majorly* reduce current inflation levels. The Fed maintains inflation levels at 1-2% stability, so a major reduction will be introducing deflation, which is poor for the economy. My social policy shall be liberal except financially; I will abolish most levels of affirmative action, and strongly advocate for complete separation of the church and the state. I shall take on some levels of welfare nonetheless. I shall attempt to lessen and remove the failing NHC. I shall strongly support nuclear power and environmental protection, and recognize that global warming *is* real and man-made (more on this later). My foreign policy shall be based on the principles of non-intervention and the universalization of non-violence. I shall also have a stringent national security policy to *ensure* the United States is safe, but nothing beyond that. Economic Policy (1) Taxation The United States currently follows a progressive income tax. [1] Progressive taxes reduce growth. In a progressive income tax system, the rich pay a larger percentage of their income to the government compared to poor people, i.e. there is a higher tax rate on the wealthy. Forcing the rich to pay higher taxes reduces economic growth as the income tax penalizes saving and investment. The standard economic model today says wealth must first be *produced* before consumption can increase. Income taxes disrupt wealth production, so progressive taxes harm the economy by taking their toll on both rich and poor. [2] “Progressive income taxes, where higher income is taxed at higher rates, reduce the returns to education, since high incomes are associated with high levels of education, and so reduce the incentive to build human capital. Progressive taxation also reduces investment, risk taking, and entrepreneurial activity since a disproportionately large share of these activities is done by high income earners.” [3] These are the results of a study published using NBER data and IRS data in order to construct two proxies of progressivity. Therefore, our current tax code needs reform, which I shall attempt to introduce gradually as President. The tax code I shall advocate for is a Bradford X-tax, a form of the progressive consumption tax which “splits consumption into two pieces, wages and business cash flow, and taxes them separately. Workers are taxed on wages at graduated rates, above an exemption amount, and businesses are taxed on cash flow at a flat rate, equal to the highest wage tax rate.” [4] The X-tax is better than the ‘fair-tax’ (flat consumption tax) as the fair-tax is regressive and penalizes level of consumption by rate, thus being very harsh on the lower-wage classes. [5] “[T]he wealthy have been enormously successful in getting special treatment, shifting an ever greater share of the burden of financing the country’s expenditures — defense, education, social programs — onto others. … One of the reasons for our poor economic performance is the large distortion in our economy caused by the tax system.” [6] Thus, I shall request Congress to shift to an X-tax gradually, from a flat tax with lower wage-class negative graduation to an X-tax. I shall also abolish the estate tax. (2) Minimum Wage I will attempt to lessen or abolish the minimum wage. According to neoclassical economic theory, excessive minimum wage may raise unemployment as it fixes a price above demand for labor. [7] Thus, lessening the minimum wage will increase employment. [7] (3) Fiscal Stimulus According to most economics, the federal fiscal stimulus is “killing the economy”. Under a fiscal stimulus, “federal outlays and debts explode. In 2008 federal red ink was ‘only’ $479 billion. Since then Uncle Sam’s annual deficit has exceeded a trillion dollars. In addition, the Federal Reserve launched a massive ‘stimulus’ campaign—costly bail-outs and mortgage purchases, near zero interest rates, and two rounds of ‘quantitative easing.’ Economist Joseph Stiglitz noted earlier this year that ‘Beginning in 2008, the balance sheet of the Fed doubled and then rose to three times its earlier level.’ ” [8] Thus, I shall abolish the Fed’s fiscal stimulus. Domestic Policy (1) Social I shall advocate for marriage privatization, separation of the church and the state, abolition of most affirmative action and complete equality of citizens based on non-financial status. That is the base of my social policy. I will legalize abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy, and legalize the rest in extreme situations only. Illegalization of abortion is impractical currently. (2) Border Fence My opponent advocates the building of a border fence. I will be against a border fence as it is impractical. “It is critical to recognize that fencing (even with barbed wire, electrification, and possibly a moat filled with alligators) is not a solution, it is only a tool. There's a fundamental misunderstanding about what a physical barrier—even the triple-layer fencing in San Diego--actually does or doesn't do for the agency charged with building fencing and securing the border. All it really does is buy you time where a crosser could otherwise quickly escape or assimilate. None of the fencing is impenetrable. People will eventually dig under it or cut through it or go over it, but it gives you enough time to respond and apprehend them. Some fencing makes sense tactically in areas selected by the Border Patrol, as where we deployed some 700 miles of it under my tenure, and in many of those areas it has been a tool to provide permanent impedance to deter and slow illegal entries on foot or by vehicle.” [9] “Since 2001, we have more than doubled the Border Patrol, deployed highly capable manned aircraft and Unmanned Aerial Systems including the Predator aircraft, and installed fixed and mobile surveillance systems. And, the Department of Homeland Security is in the process of developing its plans to deploy additional technology capabilities along key areas of the border to enhance the effectiveness of these agents.” [9] According to most reports, the above strategy is more effective than a border fence. In the face of constrained budgets, spending *billions* on ineffective border fences is a bad idea. It will absolutely cripple the economy and crush the constrained budget, which is necessary to maintain further domestic policy. Building a border fence is impractical, ineffective and does not, in any way, solve illegal immigration. This idea of my opponent’s is flawed. (3) Energy & Environmental Protection I shall advocate for environmental protection. My opponent (please clarify if otherwise) has not mentioned environmental protection in their platform, and I shall assume till contrary clarification that they are against environmental protection (as also seen in their Big Issues message). I acknowledge the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Above is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10,000 years. [10, 11] As seen, the concentration and density of CO2 has risen by 390 ppm in the Earth’s atmosphere over this period from 8,000 BCE. This excess CO2 traps heat via. the greenhouse effect. [12] As seen above, according to research conducted at NASA, “[d]espite ups and downs from year to year, global average surface temperature is rising.” [13] “According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered - a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.” [14] These global uranium deposits have enough energy to last 230 years of the current known reserves. I will utilize clean nuclear power thus. Foreign Policy (1) Non-Aggression & Non-Violence My foreign policy is entirely based on non-intervention and non-aggression. I strongly oppose the war in Afghanistan because “[f]or 12 years, the US has given military solutions every chance to work. It is clear these efforts have failed. For example, the Afghan NGO Safety Office, a highly respected group that tracks insurgent attacks in Afghanistan, recently noted a 47% increase in attacks by armed opposition groups from the first quarter of 2012 to the first quarter of 2013. Inclusive political negotiations are extremely difficult in the best of conditions. As violence grows, any efforts are very unlikely to bear fruit without first securing a ceasefire between international and Afghan forces and the insurgency.” [15] I will halt the bomb raids and invasion of Syria and cease intervention in the Syrian Civil War, as this will merely escalate tensions between the US and some of its powerful competitors, e.g. Russia and China, who are allies of Syria. [16] Thus, my entire foreign policy shall be based on upholding national security, and on principles of non-intervention and non-aggression. Conclusion On balance, my domestic policy, economic policy and foreign policy are stronger than my opponent’s. Vote Tejretics 2016. Sources 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://tinyurl.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. http://tinyurl.com... 15. http://tinyurl.com... 16. http://tinyurl.com...