Questions for the left.

For the purposes of this debate I will consider myself a proper 'liberal' or 'leftist'. For the sake of brevity I will respond to my opponent's questions/claims in the order in which they appear. Then I will present my argument. 1. A person who earns more money is more responsible 'tax wise' because they have the ability to pay more. With a progressive tax structure the poorer classes pay the little that they can, so that they can afford to eat. In a tax structure where everyone pays the same amount, the tax burden would fall more heavily the further down the income bracket you go. For instance, $2000 per year means a whole lot more for someone making $12,000 per year than is is for someone who makes $250,000 per year. (Note: these figures do not reflect any actual policy, they just serve to illustrate the point). 2. Happiness and comfort are ultimately the responsible of the individual no matter how much money they make or how much the government is involved. Certainly my opponent can conceive of a depressed billionaire and a happy family living below the poverty line. I challenge my opponent to back up this statement with some substance because as it stands this point is irrelevent. 3. I'm not entirely certain what my opponent means by "Why does class warfare work on you?". Is he claiming that class warfare is more efficient when aimed toward 'leftists' or 'liberals'? Some clarification here would be welcome. 4. I assume by what my opponent has written that he means the Subprime Bailout. This is an issue that has been picked up by the left as much as it has by the right. Conversely, it has not been picked up any More by the left than it has been by the right. I must also remind my opponent that the Subprime Bailout plan was intoduced by Henry Paulson, who is a member of the Republican party and can thus be characterized as being on the 'right'. 5. I'm not certain where my opponent picked up the notion that those with 'liberal' or 'leftist' views feels like they are owed something. I challenge him to back up this question/claim with substance. 6. I assure both my opponent and the reader that I am more knowledgeable about the past than is he. Myself, and many other 'left' leaning people have just as much understanding of the past as do those on the 'right'. This is yet another unsubstantiated claim. I await the next round to see the relevence of this claim. 7. I have indeed read the Federalist Papers in their entirety on several occaisions. I have a copy of it no more that five feet away from me at this precise instant. I hope my opponent has some relevence for the question in R2. 8. I present a counter question: Why does the far right blindly follow leaders when their Pure Free Market ideology is clearly damaging to our nation and our lower classes. Pure Free Markets have the tendency to work well for the wealthy at the expense of the masses. This can be seen by British attempts of the past to institute such a policy, and by our own recent deregulation of the past several years. I could not put it better than my Debate.org colleague, Lightkeeper, "According to the US Census, between 2001 and 2007 the lowest, second and third fifths of households in the USA have in fact sustained a reduction in yearly household income (based on figures adjusted for inflation). The Fourth and the highest fifths were the only ones to experience growth. In other words, during Mr Bush's presidency, the poor have become poorer and very few rich have become richer." (Quotation by Lightkeeper of Debate.org: http://www.debate.org... in Round 1 4.a). This is a result of George W. Bush's policy of deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush is, notably, 'right-wing' and 'conservative'. Furthermore, the 'left' does not "destroy" private enterprise, they merely seek to regulate it so that unethical practices do not cuase, for instance, housing crises and Wall Street crises. It is also important to note that such regulation has been picked up by 'rightists', or 'conservatives' in light of the results of these practices. 9. I ask my opponent to substantiate the claim that those on the 'left' are economically illiterate, and to explain what it is he means by "economically illiterate". 10. Is a shift to the right a requisite for maturity and wisdom? I once again challenge my opponent to provide evidence for why it would be mature or wise for such a shift. Conclusion: My opponent has provided no evidence for any of his claims and no substance to his empty questions. I challenge my opponent to come up with valid and relevent arguments in his R2.