BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Government Spending is Inefficient

The government has no incentive or barometer for efficient allocation of resources. Rather than searching out arenas for profit growth, the government seeks to do damage control. Since the government does not seek profit, it has no way of telling how efficient it is in allocating resources. Unlike firms, the government cannot be allowed to fail, meaning there is no penalty for inefficiency and no competitive alternatives. Most importantly, the government is funding existing firms or projects, which are being funded because they have already failed or are on the brink of failure. We often see government expenditure touted as the fastest way to improve GDP growth. With "each dollar of government spending" the GDP "increases...by only 1.4 dollars".[[http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_Is%20Govt%20Spending%20Too%20Easy.pdf]] The increase for endogenous tax cuts (i.e. tax cuts attempting to help a faltering economy) are estimated to show about 3 to 1 growth in GDP.[[http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf]] Government spending and taxes are not separate issues. Governments can only pay off expenditures with tax hikes. The Romer study suggests that "an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly three percent", a phenomenon likely caused by the fact that "investment falls sharply in response to exogenous tax increases".[[http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf]] What seems like a way out of recession may actually be a step into another one. A recent example would be JP Morgan Chase Bank's 25 billion dollar bailout: a bailout they used to finance their own private acquisitions, not to make loans. They issued a statement that read "loan volume will continue to go down as we continue to tighten credit". JP Morgan took 25 billion but did not provide much-needed loans to small businesses, employers, and individuals which would have helped, among other things, to create jobs and improve the housing market. If JP Morgan felt they could make a profit from giving loans, they would. But all of their returns are heavily taxed to the point that making acquisitions is a safer and more profitable short-term goal, even though it does not improve the economy a bit.
Job Creation/Stability

An increase in jobs is a fundamental part of getting out of a recession. Consumer spending needs to be increased in order to see tangible growth in the economy and consumer spending can not be increased as long as consumers remain unemployed. The most efficient way to create jobs is to decrease corporate taxes that create incentives to create new jobs. For example, the state of Michigan enacted policy that substantially decreased corporate taxes on companies that created new jobs in high-growth sectors such as green and bio technology.[[www.michigan.gov/documents/gov/Econ_job_223200_7.pdf]] The purpose of business is to profit and through corporate tax cuts, business will have the ability to profit easier while creating jobs. Employed consumers spend the necessary money to stimulate and grow the economy. This is proven in the example of Ireland, which adopted a 12.5% corporate tax in 1988 while having the second-lowest per capita income in Europe and now has the second-highest income in Europe.[[http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/04/tax-cut-stimulus-opinions-contributors_0204_peter_ferrara.html]] Recently, the French government posted figures of 0.3% growth in GDP for the second quarter of 2009, an indicator it is coming out of the recession. Across the euro zone, only Germany matched this growth. This was unexpected by experts and while it does not mean the recession is over for France, it is encouraging. One of the key forces behind this was an increase in consumption. Consumption increased by 0.3% this quarter. This increase was the aim of the government when reducing VAT as part of its strategy to combat the recession. For companies such as restaurants and cafes, VAT was slashed from 19% to 5.5%, which industry bodies predicted successfully would lead to an increase in consumption. [[http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4446507,00.html]] [[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jXJawG8lN9DDRVZ8N5-VSsc4_-Dw]] Government spending can also create jobs but the question is are these jobs suitable for getting out of a recession? The answer is a resounding no. Let's examine one of the largest attempts by government to create jobs, Roosevelt's Public Works Administration which allocated $3.3 billion dollars for public jobs to stimulate employment[[http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/pwa.htm]]. The jobs created by it usually lasted only months allowing only short term employment and the unemployment rate remained above 9%[[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110011064 ]]. Many of the jobs consisted of building public structures and murals such as a mountain theater that were not done to grow the economy further but to grow political capital. After the expenditures stopped, so did the jobs. Only private industry can provide the long term stability and job creation through new and improved investments which are vital economic necessities to get out of a recession. By providing corporate tax cuts to incentive this, governments will not fall in a pit of spending that only provides sparks and stifling the private industry that could make blazing positive changes in the economy.
Simplicity

Simplicity should be the cornerstone of any monetary policy because simplicity brings predictability to consumers and companies. When both groups know what to expect, they will be more apt to act.[[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757149157954723.html]] According to Milton Friedman's permanent-income theory, consumers spend not in regard to their current income but what they expect their income to be in the long term. Tax cuts offers a consistent and predictable principle that restores consumer confidence that is needed to get out of a recession because they know if and when they can act on a expected long term income. Government spending, on the other hand, seems to be allergic to simplicity. It is rather inconsistent, for example the bailout of Bear-Sterns and not Lehman Brothers[[http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/03/failing-to-bailout-lehman-brothers-was-a-mistake.html]] or the substantial lack of transparency in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)[[http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/07/20/they-dont-call-it-tarp-for-nothing/]]. The complexities and variances of government spending leave consumers in a world of uncertainty and lead to declines in consumer spending and investment. While the causes of recessions may be highly complex, governments need to provide simple and elegant solutions that consumers can understand and adapt to. Government cannot rely on solutions cloaked in complexity that even government officials don't understand and cannot explain to their constituents.[[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/business/economy/10bank.html ]]
Demonstrated Utility of Tax Cuts Contrasted With Increased Spending

During a financial crisis, it is important to create incentives for working toward economic recovery. Since normal situations of high taxation already “discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion,”[[http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm]] this can only be amplified in situations where people feel especially stretched thin during economic distress. Government coffers become stretched by the added burden of spending, and with economic downturn there is less revenue generated. This lack of government revenue is further aggravated by when workers are forced to adopt behaviors to avoid paying taxes (such as taking jobs that pay under the table and never report their income). This is counterproductive toward the aim of recovering the economy. This forces either deficit spending in order to cover the cost of whatever the government spending might be, or government spending being insufficient to cover the costs of its intended purpose. It lacks a guarantee that the government can afford to continue the spending it promises. Taking a lower amount of taxes on a percentage basis is a short-term mechanism to stimulate economic growth that translates into higher taxes in the long term when there is more money overall to be taxed. President Reagan cut taxes during the 1980s in the United States, and all projections were assumed for revenue shortfalls, or if nothing else, no increases in overall taxation revenues. However, the taxation revenue on individual incomes increased from 1980 to 1989, nearly doubling, from $244 billion $446 billion. Similar measures from the 1920s and 1960s also showed growth in overall taxation revenues after their implementation rather than expected shortages.[[http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm]] In fact, when recession hit the United States in 1919, a series of tax cuts over the next nine years kept the economy stable, and the recession itself was over within two years. It was only after government spending increased in the 1930s in response to the 1929 Stock Market Crash that the economy plummeted into the true depths of its depression[[http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=334276867815560]]. Since it has been established that status quo taxation will provide incentives for citizens to subvert the legal norms of taxation payments, the reduction in taxation engenders loyalty between citizens their governments, and influences enough growth to more than pay for itself in a short time after implementation has occurred.
Efficiency of Private Businesses

Tax cuts are more efficient because firms following their self-interest will seek investments that provide profit. With heavy corporate taxes, firms are forced to either take on too much risk to make profit which can lead to financial collapse, or they merely make safe moves and firms that make acquisitions profit more than those taking risk. This is less than desirable because too cautious or sparse of investment means that there is likely to be little growth. Additionally, the corporations that are able to acquisition are the larger which means an economy may see oligopolies and eventually monopolies form which will harm the competitiveness of the market. In addition, tax cuts are preferable because the forces of supply and demand can more freely work on their own. Firms seeking profit are more sensitive to demand than governments seeking to employ and prop up. Thus they affect supply so that the market is cleared as supply and demand meet and wastefulness is minimized. This makes for a more efficient allocation of resources and a much more sustainable economy. Both are necessary to recover from a recession.
Benefits to and Efficiency of Households

When trying to recover from a recession it is vital that the government encourages saving and helps provide the means through tax cuts. Savings is important because it so often takes the form of investment in the market. By the laws of supply and demand, the more investment that enters the system, the less companies need to pay to borrow. Thus it is easier for these companies to employ and expand. With tax cuts pocketed, households will be more likely to save or invest their money in greater-growth opportunities. Since tax cuts provide for a multitude of investors, the rate of failed investments will be much lower than if the government makes huge lump sum expenditures in large investments. Also, tax cuts for individuals can help households better handle temporary reduction in hours they are experiencing at the time or anticipate to experience in the near future. The less the government takes from households the more income there is to go towards balancing a recession affected budget. When a household runs a deficit it is nearly impossible for that household to increase consumption as the economy will need in order to recover.
Government Spending is Protectionist

Protectionism is bad for the world economy, and in a globalized world, bad for all economies, particularly third world economies who are unable to sustain themselves on their domestic markets. When the U.S. passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (which the U.S. Gov't self-admittedly calls the "high-water mark of U.S. protectionism in the 20th century"[[http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1921_timeline/smoot_tariff.html]]), France, Britain, Germany, and Canada reacted with protectionist or reductionist policies of their own which many economists agree lengthened and strengthened the severity of the depression. The recent government expenditures have led to protectionist policies that reduce total global revenue and lengthen the recession, an outcome that could be avoided if tax cuts were adopted instead. "National policies employed by the UK, French, Dutch and Austrian governments to build up liquidity reserves at home [are] creating a protectionist environment...[which has] adverse side-effects on the fabric of the globalised financial system [that] are already visible and, if left untended, will become more serious".[[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5505726/Government-lending-targets-for-bail-out-banks-feed-protectionism-warns-IIF.html]] When governments subsidize their own industries and firms, other countries must in turn subsidize theirs, devalue their currency, or tack on tariffs to remain competitive in the global market. The WTO[[http://www.newsweek.com/id/175062]] and IMF have expressed concern about the future of the global trade markets. Tax cuts provide incentive to look for markets outside of the domestic exchange, increasing global revenue and creating job opportunities and capital investment opportunities that are not always possible domestically.
It's a positive topic

On the flip side, others will bring up that while many religions do teach positive messages about love and kindness, those very same religions also include material that is downright violent. Many people will bring up how the Old Testament is full of horrific stories and that the Koran seems to condone violence. With this in mind, many would argue that the violence in these religious teachings combined with the messages of love and peace in the same books could only serve to cause confusion for students and become a very difficult topic to teach in schools. Others wonder if the stories in these religious books are appropriate for certain ages in schools and if they are to be taught in school curriculums, when should they be taught? The violence and judgmental viewpoints in some religions causes many to question if teaching religious education is actually a good idea.
It's a positive topic

Many argue that religion, for the most part, is a positive subject that can provide students with moral and ethical ideas that will help to instill good values in them. From Christianity to the teachings of Buddha and some Islamic beliefs, there is a basis of do good unto others and be kind to your fellow human and people will argue that this is not a harmful topic to be taught in class. An argument for it being positive in student's lives is that it helps to provide character development due to positive messages like "love thy neighbor as thyself" from the Bible and "Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule." With a focus on these subjects shared in religious books, many consider the idea of religious education to be a formative and character building one that will provide children with material that will benefit them as adults.
Children should know and learn about all religions

While for a long time, parents of a certain faith pushed for religion to be taught in schools, they were only determined to have their faith taught on the school curriculum. When it comes to several religions being taught, many from strict and staunch religious beliefs will argue that it is confusing for children to be exposed to so many religions, especially if they are being taught to respect and practice a certain one at home. Many people will argue that this is imposing upon the belief system of individuals and their families and that it isn't fair for children to be exposed by the oftentimes confusing messages found in religions different from their own. Some people consider children to be too young to consider the big questions about life and purpose that are often brought up in religions. They feel that these kinds of deep questions can only cause confusion in young children and make them think about serious topics when they should be still having fun.
Children should know and learn about all religions

Some people argue that it's important for children to have a broad awareness about religions. They believe that it will help them make an informed decision on the religion they would like to believe in and understand it, as opposed to only learning about religion at home. Many people who argue for religious education in school curriculums feel that they would have liked to have been offered an option as children about what to believe and to have been able to learn about the different religions that exist. The argument for children understanding about all religions is that they can have a more logical and well-rounded perspective on faith and religious beliefs so that they can choose to think and what they want to believe, for themselves, instead of it being something that they are taught as a fundamental fact by their parents.
It teaches children how to be open-minded and accepting of other people's faiths and backgrounds

A contradicting opinion that some people may have is that if so many different religions are being taught in school, children could become confused with why their own parents have chosen to believe in one certain one. Depending on how the religion is taught, many argue that this could cause them to think negatively about their parents and why they believe in a certain religion when there are several different ones. If these children are raised to believe in Christianity, for example, but then they learn about another religion such as Buddhism or Hinduism, they may question why they "have" to believe what they are being taught at home. Some consider RE studies to be disruptive for family life and cause for confusion in children in both deep questions about life and in their personal relationships with their family and their family's religion.
It teaches children how to be open-minded and accepting of other people's faiths and backgrounds

Many will argue that one reason why there are so many issues with religions is that people are not taught to be open about other religions while growing up. For many, religion is a very personal thing that is taught by their own family, so if they feel attacked about their religion, they take offense at it personally as it if is an attack on their family and themselves. The argument for teaching religious education in schools is that helping children to be aware of the broad spectrum of religions and how there are children just like them that believe differently will help them to separate their faith or their family's religious belief from being a personal matter of who they are. Many people have the opinion that children who are raised to learn about several different religions will grow up to be more tolerant of those who are from different backgrounds and religions—even very strict and possibly "strange" ones.
It teaches ethical values

Other people believe that ethical values can be taught in other ways. The argument is that many non-religious households are successful in raising their children to be respectful and caring individuals who function well in society and who are accepting and tolerant of those from diverse backgrounds. People believe that there are plenty of other ways to instill ethics and morals in children that have nothing to do with religion. From non-religious stories that teach values to historic examples of great people that had nothing to do with religion, the argument is made that ethics are not synonymous with religion, so why should that be a reason for religions to be taught in schools? Those on this side of the debate will argue that when it comes to ethics, religion may not be the best standard by which to teach it due to the often-glaring contrasts that are found in certain religions.
It teaches ethical values

Many will argue that teaching religion in school is an excellent way to teach values to children. Because many religions do have strong ethical and moral values in them, people feel that they are a great place to start for introducing ethics and morals into children's lives. Some believe that teaching the values from different religions helps to encourage personal reflection in students that teaches them to be aware of their actions and decisions and also inspires tolerance. Many would say that it also teaches them how there are different ways to believe similar things, but that all "roads lead to the same destination." For those who believe in the positive side of religious education in school curriculums, the argument is that children are able to develop more than just academic skills, but also humanistic advantages by studying about religion in school.
Religion Divides

The first question you must ask when looking at this is what about the people who are of different or no faith. Is it worth alienating just one person so that the rest of society can do what they want? If so, I would call that communism and I believe that every individual should have a say in what goes on. If we bring education into the classroom then we are just bringing prejudice into the classroom. There are definately good aspects to religion (but most people do not get their morals from religion), but what are children of religion supposed to think of nonbelievers when their number 1 commandment is "Though shall not worship false gods"? This will surely lead to the nonbelievers being outcasts in a place where they are supposed to just be learning. I will not deny that learning about religion is important in an educational sense but studying it from a spiritual sense should be done in a person's own time. Why bring something that is totally irrevalent and based off of beliefs, not pure facts, be brought into the classroom?
Genetics are not the 'be all and end all'.

If we begin to allow people mitigating circumstances due to their genetic make up, then we are creating yet another excuse. People are not fat because they have ‘fat genes’ just like people are not violent because they have ‘violent genes’. There may be genes that make us more susceptible to such traits, but we are ultimately responsible for our own actions. And it is when we shirk this responsibility that we should be punished with the full arm of the law.
The sentence should have been extended, not shortened.

Based on the information from several psychiatric reports, the judge agreed that psychiatric illness was a mitigating factor in this case and handed down a sentence of 9 years and 2 months in prison — a sentence approximately three years shorter than could have been expected had the defendant been deemed to be of sound mind. It seems paradoxical that someone who is more likely to commit violent crime be given a shorter punishment. Is it not in the public interest to extend the sentence thus keeping the criminal away from general members of the public for longer?