Resolve: The federal government should substancially increase social services for people in poverty.

As a disclaimer, I'd like to point out that many times I play Devil's Advocate, so you shouldn't assume to know my real position based on what I write here. Nevertheless, I look forward to a great and interesting discussion. Thanks! [ REBUTTAL ] While my opponent's burden is to explain why the USFG should increase social services, you'll find that many of his contentions do not actually give arguments in favor of the resolution. For instance, Pro begins by saying people who commit fraud regarding Medicaid ought to be punished with a higher jail sentence and higher fine. Quite obviously this is merely expressing an opinion about a punishment being too light; it does nothing to say why the USFG increasing funds is a good idea. Next, Pro writes that the government should give out more grants and less loans. Why? If the government gives someone money so they can receive an education, and then go on to make a living in the workforce, why is it unreasonable to expect said person to pay the government back what they owe? Keep in mind that "the government" are your fellow tax payers. Why is it acceptable to take money from your peers without giving it back? They (citizens) are forced to pay for another's education which is theft. I can understand making lending options available to all citizens a goal - or perhaps even a plan to eliminate all interest on borrowed government money for education. However asking for a completely free ride is not only irresponsible in terms of government spending, but immoral. Pro continues to point out that college is expensive, though I reject the idea that it costs 18,000 dollars a year. One can attend a typical community college for only 2,000 dollars a year [1]. This is not an outrageous figure. Nevertheless, Pro's next assertion on the topic of education is that the federal government needs to get inner city schools better qualified teachers and better technology and equipment. However the USFG need not increase social services to do this. First, there are various programs that work to get some of the best teachers involved with urban youth, such as the Teach For America program which is non-profit [2]. Moreover if the government cut pork and other useless spending from their budget, they would not have to increase any programs but rather increase funding for already existing programs in order to get kids the tools they need to be competitive in the education field. Finally, my opponent suggests increasing the minimum wage to an amazing 15.50 $ an hour. There are many arguments against the minimum wage, but I'll begin with a simple contention: that increasing the minimum wage would be pointless, as the repercussion would simply be the cost of living increasing. Approximately 90% of economists agreed that the minimum wage overall had negative economic effects on low-skilled workers [3]. Not only will the cost of products go up as the minimum wage does, but it also limits the number of job opportunities for low skill workers. For instance if an employer is forced to pay someone $16 per hour, that means only 1 worker can labor for that hour instead of 2 if they each made $8. In other words, the minimum wage limits job opportunities which can keep the economy stagnant and increase poverty. I'll leave it at that for now! [ ARGUMENTS ] Government spending reduces labor force participation, increases unemployment, and reduces productivity. For instance, not only would increasing social programs take away the incentive to work, but it would decrease productivity growth rates by inhibiting innovation and capital accumulation. Resources are taken from the private sector and placed in the unproductive public sector, which tends to be wasteful and mismanage money on nearly every endeavor [4]. Moreover, if the USFG were to spend more, interest rates would increase that decrease private investment. History shows us that this type of intervention creates an uncertainty within the market that discourages investment, therefore capital, and overall reduces the return of long-term investments [5]. Since the economy cannot grow without increased private investment and consumption, it would be irresponsible to increase social services instead of allowing tax payers to retain that money and pump back into our market economy, thereby making everybody richer (and reducing the need for said programs in a more efficient, effective and moral way). That's all for now. .. good luck! [1] . http://ezinearticles.com... [2] . http://www.teachforamerica.org... [3] . http://ideas.repec.org... [4] . http://www.heritage.org... [5] . http://www.house.gov...