On the following proposed "economic stimulus" plan

My opponent has dropped his tax argument entirely. He has also dropped his case for a minimum wage. UNIONS: My opponent drops his economic argument against the shift of power from regulatory bureaucracies to labour unions. My opponent also makes a crime argument. White collar crime has become an increasing problem in the United States, and the FBI has implemented strategies to combat it [1]. Further, since the crime my opponent refers to, the FBI has increased its ability to address white collar crime and its like [2]. Also, the DoL function that investigates labour racketeering would likely be incorporated into the FBI, where it belongs [3]. So, eliminating the DoL does not weaken law enforcement. The criminal concern is minimal, and the economic benefit is massive. CHILD LABOUR Child labour is most common in the poorest families of the poorest countries [4]. Child labour would be much less common, if not non-existent, in America, a wealthy nation. The additional income that families will have because of the other factors improving the economy that my opponent has conceded along with the additional income recieved because of the end of the income tax and the income returned due to less government spending in general make American families less likely to be in need of their children's labour. In addition, child labour is frowned upon in America. This cultural aspect would further discourage child labour. Even with the DoL, Child Labour in the United States is still a "significant concern" [5]. EDUCATION My opponent has presented new arguments in the later rounds; however, I will address them. The benefits of education are significant enough for people to willingly pay for it. My opponent states that parents are not compelled to enroll their children in schools; however, he does not argue why children would not enroll in schools without this mandate. My opponent has dropped his case as to the benefits of private education. Private institutions could easily buy up old public institutions (see PUBLIC LAND), so there would be an easy transition. Private education would benefit the poor [6], encourage competition [7], and focus more on skills needed in the workplace. For these reasons, private education would benefit the economy. PUBLIC LAND The summary of my opponent's argument is that most businessmen think in the short term. However, most of the things my opponent mention are potential business assets. It currently has an income of $800,000,000 annually [8] [9], and is therefore most likely to be used as an asset. That is, you can buy it now, make money off of it, and then sell it later for more than you bought it. Contrary to my opponent's (unwarranted) claim, businessment DO think in the long term and their businesses would not last long otherwise [10]. Whatever decision they decide will be in the interest of long term profit (conceded by my opponent); therefore, the economy is improved. Besides that, most of my opponent's complaints do not concern the selling of downtown government buildings that are no longer necessary. This will yield the effect I described in the first round and will not yield the consequences my opponent predicted. INDIAN RESERVATIONS Indian Reservations have sovereignty [11], so this argument is irrelevant. Indian Reservation land is not "public". SUMMARY With free trade, the demand for our exports increases. My opponent has conceded that this will help our economy. With no income tax or capital gains tax, individuals will be able to spend their money more voluntarily, yielding more effective allocation of capital. My opponent has conceded this point. With no corporate income tax, prices can fall even more, and American goods can be more competitive in foreign markets. My opponent has conceded that this benefits the economy. With no corporate income tax, the cost of living decreases. My opponent has conceded that this helps the economy. With no regulatory bureaucracy, there is less capital waste. The same functions will be achieved through the invisible hand. My opponent has conceded this point. With a gold standard, our currency will have a stable market value. My opponent has conceded that this benefits the economy. Without the minimum wage, unemployment will decrease and the business cycle will be less severe. My opponent has conceded that this helps the economy. Without subsidies and corporate welfare, market surplus will more effectively be the result of public demand, and my opponent has conceded that this is beneficial. Those reasons alone are enough to VOTE PRO. However, there are more reasons than those: -Public education waste will be eliminated -Private education will allow the workforce to more easily meet the demands of the global market -The general decrease in the size of the public sector will allow a greater size of the private secor as less market surplus is drained into bureaucracy So, on balance, my plan will improve the economy. Therefore, a PRO vote is eminent. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. [1] . http://www.fbi.gov... [2] . http://www.fbi.gov... [3] . http://www.oig.dol.gov... (The OIG investigates government fraud as well as labour racketeering). [4] . http://www.america.gov... [5] . http://pangaea.org... . http://pangaea.org... [6] James Tooley: "Could For-Profit Private Education Benefit the Poor? Could For-Profit Private Education Benefit the Poor? " (Summary: . http://www.eric.ed.gov...) [7] Milton Friedman: "Capitalism and Freedom", Chapter VI. [8] . http://www.eric.ed.gov... [9] . http://www.nau.edu... [10] . http://www.roomreview.net... (It takes a creative approach, but it is still legit) [11] . http://en.wikipedia.org...