USA needs to significantly spend less

The topic of the debate is whether or not the United States of America needs to spend significantly less.Definition of need: A requirement,necessary duty,or obligation [1]If I can prove that it is neither required, necessary, nor an obligation to cut spending, Pro loses the debate.Definition of significantly: in a sufficiently great or important way as to be worthy of attention [2]---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"our debt is out of control"Pro claims that our debt is out of control, yet states (at the end) "I'm not saying we are beyond the point of no return."This is a contradiction. Either we have control over the debt or we don't."the experts" "realted organizations" "they"Who are these people that Pro is using as sources?"only people like paul krugman argue it is not a big deal. he probably does this mostly to be a contrarian and get attention."Pro is engaging in pure speculation here. Also, what defines being like Paul Krugman? Krugman has side burns, a small beard, and a mustache. He's also white and went to Yale. Is Pro claiming that only white Yale graduates with facial hair argue for Keynesian economics?Jokes aside, Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist [3]. I'm inclined to take his word over Pro's word. "what makes now different, is that the country was developing"Is the country not developing anymore? Of course it is. This claim is ridiculous. "if we continue to grow in debt, we revenue won't increase in proportion."I take it Pro doesn't economics much. "within maybe thirty or so years, interest on the debt will eat out much of other spending, even to the detriment of entitlement spending."Proof?"things need to shape up. we can't keep spending like a drunken sailor."How much do drunken sailors spend? We can actually do math to figure this out. An E-1 Naval Officer in the United States Navy earns $1,447.20 per month [4]. That's $17,366.40 per year without bonuses or benefits. The average cost of a beer in the USA is around $3.82 [5]. In the United States, .08 is when you are legally considered drunk [6]. This number comes earlier or later for people of different weights. I'll assume that a Navy sailor will be larger than most males. Therefore I will determine that the sailor in question weighs 220 pounds (99.7 kg, 15.7 stone). It takes a 220 pound man 5 drinks (one shot of liquor, one glass of wine, one bottle of beer). to become legally drunk. Afterwords, it takes another five to reach a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) of .19. Any bartender worth his salt will cut off the sailor at this point. After adding the taxi fair (the sailor lives $8 fair away) to get home, that amounts to $27.10 respectively. That amounts to 0.0016% of his budget. Drunken sailors actually spend pretty responsibly. Here comes the moment of truth. If I can find one single reasonable alternative to Pro's proposed spending cuts, I win the debate. We should get tough on corporations. As a country, we lose billions of dollars on corporate tax evaders [7]. Many corporations store a lot of their money overseas, in order to avoid it being taxed. In fact, many companies pay no taxes whatsoever [8]. Even Mitt Romney has money in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes on it. Can anybody believe that he almost became president? I argue that we close the loopholes. That will bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, without any spending cuts. As we can see in this chart [9], 65% of all spending is mandatory spending like Medicare/Medicaid. Only 29% of all spending can be altered. Cutting the discretionary(alterable) budget has almost no impact on the debt. The way to save the economy is to increase revenue, not cut spending. Obviously, we do not absolutely need to cut spending. Sorry Pro, but your claim has been disproven. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] https://www.google.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.ehow.com...[5] http://www.pintprice.com...[6] http://www.legalmatch.com...[7] http://fortune.com...[8] http://www.motherjones.com...[9] https://static.nationalpriorities.org...