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

Pro claims the mixture of socialism and capitalism is responsible for American prosperity. I've outlined how that is nonsensical. If capitalistic endeavors were not successful, there would be no wealthy or middle class people to tax in order to fund programs. Social programs are parasitic and dependent on people's wealth; they do not generate wealth (only improved welfare). Socialism could not exist without prosperity that was already there via capitalism. My opponent then claims social programs save us money. That is not supported. Less than 22% of the population receive welfare [1] therefore most people are paying for a program they will never use. The rich pay the vast majority of taxes. The top 10% of earners account for more than 70% of the income tax collected [2]. The top 1% pay more than 38% of collected income taxes [3]. This is more than their "fair share" considering they are not getting back any return contrary to Pro's claim. Had these people been allowed to invest their profits instead, jobs would be created, the economy would improve and more people would have the opportunity to work -- or they could save and we could reduce the need for Social Security. We have no reason to believe Bernie's support of a Ponzi scheme is somehow preferable to the reform that Johnson proposes, which seeks to eliminate or minimize the problematic effects of said Ponzi scheme. "Sanders, long a proponent of expanding the welfare state, has suggested not only keeping current SS benefits but substantially expanding them for all beneficiaries. To fund his plan, Sanders proposes to remove the current cap on payroll taxes, dramatically expanding the tax burden of many Americans to pour even more money into this unsustainable and slowly collapsing program. If millennials think jobs are hard to find and wages are low now, just wait until these taxes on work kick in. Although this change seems minor at first blush, the eye-popping cost of Sanders' radical proposal would ring up over a trillion dollars over 10 years. Worse, even without expanding the benefits as Sanders wants, his massive tax hike would do little to solve the underlying flaws in Social Security" [4]. My opponent claims the younger generation of workers has not paid for the older generation since 1983. That is completely wrong. In 1983 the government conspired to shift the burden to an even younger generation [5] which does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. In fact Obama has said more reform is needed similar to that of 1983, which just means an increased burden for the NEXT generation until funds run out... which they will within ~30 years according to independent sources [6]. Pro believes other people have the right to steal your belongings by force. Pro (and Sanders) advocate legal theft. Like pro-lifers, socialists believe it's okay to infringe upon the rights of the individual to protect others. But nobody is protected if the government (or tyranny of the majority) can infringe upon our basic liberties. My opponent claims that it's "not theft" to steal money from people against their will. Theft is defined as the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent [7]. Ergo taxes are *literally* theft. Living within the borders of the United States does not imply automatic, non-coerced consent. To minimize this perhaps "necessarily evil" of taxation, Johnson proposes a standard flat tax and other measures that will keep the tax code simple, minimize fraud and promote growth. Now assuming Pro is arguing that Gary Johnson has made use of subsidies (which Pro does not regard as a bad thing), we must ask why this is supposedly a negative. Considering Johnson cut taxes, presided over significant job growth and created a reserve fund in his state, we can see that he's been successful using the very standards Bernie advocates. Therefore wouldn't that be a positive point for Gary by anyone who values Bernie's standards? It would only be libertarians like myself who reject Johnson's utilization of subsidies, however if both candidates use subsidies, we must weigh their other positions and/or how the candidates use those subsidies to be effective or not. Two times I have 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. That's because it's logical to assume that if the rich are already moving money and jobs offshore, Pro's advocacy of increasing their taxes will only encourage more of this behavior, thereby making his suggestion counterproductive and not at all effective. Pro says "the 1% does not get to shape policy by holding American jobs hostage. If they chose to they should be punished." Directly after that sentence he admits that jobs are not a right. That's true, and job creators have zero obligation to ensure jobs are created in America. Therefore Pro's suggestion that people who start business overseas ought to be punished is absurd. It's also immoral. People in underdeveloped nations should have the opportunity to work and grow their economies. Americans are not automatically deserving or entitled to jobs any more than anyone else in this world, and Pro has not proven as such. While fat-cat capitalists might benefit from globalization, the biggest beneficiaries are third world workers. Pro also makes the fallacious connection that if jobs are not a right, income is not a right. Income is not a right, however, property is a right and money promised for labor (income) qualifies as property. It's called property income [8]. Pro claims that cheap labor does not help the economy. That is false. Virtually all economists agree that "We should buy things where they're cheapest. That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing those things" [9]. If you pay more for something, you'll have to buy less, or less of something else. That hurts workers in other firms which has a problematic impact on the market and leads to unemployment. Mandating higher wages also has a negative impact on employment [10]. China's economic situation is no thanks to low wages. The single most important development in China to thwart its economy has been its credit binge. Debt is the reason for Chinese decline [11]. I've explained at length why Gary Johnson's budget and plan to reduce our government debt is far superior to Bernie's. My opponent has dropped every single one of my arguments noting the problematic aspect of government debt and its widespread impact on the overall economy, yet China is a scathing example of why government debt is important to reduce. Fortunately Gary Johnson has a viable plan for this; Bernie does not. My opponent asks for sources explaining Bernie's economic illiteracy [12]. I've explained at length why Sanders' proposals are economically illiterate throughout this debate: he doesn't understand the concept of debt, credit or trade on the economy nor does he consider the effects of his proposals. Considering so much of his platform is centered around the economy, it's scary how little he understands financial markets. I'll re-cap all of this in the final round. My opponent doubts that most pollution occurs on public land. "Rather than fulfilling their natural role of absorbing carbon and balancing the carbon cycle, public lands have become one of the largest sources of U.S. carbon emissions as a result of fossil fuel extraction. In fact, public lands in the continental United States are contributing nearly 4.5 times more carbon to the atmosphere than they are currently able to absorb" [13]. Pro claims markets don't protect resources, yet he dropped my contentions on the Tragedy of the Commons. Please extend. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...