Solving the debt issue: Cut deep or across the board.

Let's begin. Contention 1: Usefulness Many Federal programs are not all that useful to the general population of the United States, or purposes the programs were designed for. I would suggest cutting all of these 'useless' programs. I use quotes for my opponent may state these programs may have use, but really these programs are worth their salt. These programs not only drain money needed to aid the people and lower or national debt, but these programs have no legitimate purpose for the continuence of America as a world superpower,or even as a functioning nation. There are several main programs the Federal government should work on cutting, and here are just a few. . http://www.homelandstupidity.us... Out of this list, there are a couple I would like to especially point out. The first is the U. S. Botanic Garden. This program recieved $6,275,000 in the fiscal year of 2005, and what purpose does that really serve to the U. S. ? Sure, Americans like beautiful things, but is this really necessary to be run by the Federal government? Another is the Afican Development Foundation. They seek "to alleviate poverty and promote broad-based sustainable development and empowerment in Africa". Sounds good right? Wrong. The Federal government is throwing money at Africa, hoping to solve their major problem of poverty. Have you every heard the saying "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to teach, you feed him for a lifetime,"? Basically, we are giving poverty-striken Africans many fish, and teaching them to depend on the U. S. This drains our income significantly over time, and I would suggest this be another program to cut out completely. Contention 2: Money Drain Many programs that need to be cut are not, and an argument frequently used is this: These programs don't cost much and help many. My issue is that many of these programs don't even aid ailing Americans or maintain our world status. The U. S. Botanical Gardens are an example of such a money drain. They don't give back the money that is spent on them by providing some sort of service or good. The Botanical Gardens drain millions every year. The African Develpment Foundation seeks to aid poverty-striken Africans, and this helps us maintain our status as a benevolent world leader. But what are we really accomplishing with this? Throwing money at any issue will not solve it, especially at a problem that could easily be fixed. By investing in Africa and allowing it to thrive economically, we retain this status and in the future the U. S. loses less money. Perfect, we would have taught a man to fish, and he is able to feed himself for a lifetime. But these two programs aren't the only ones that are money drains on the Federal government. Another such organization is the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 2003, the BIA accepted $91 million in permanent funding, and $2,269 Million in, then, current funding. Since then, the money used to support this organization has only increased. What goal does this organization provide? It informs Native Americans of different things, acts as a support for Native Americans, and other things relating to that race. While this does help an important minority, isn't America at the point where anyone can get their point across? If not, then that means America doesn't need to worry about the budget, it has to worry about prejudice. This organization is NOT needed. . http://www.doi.gov... (I couldnt pull up the actually budget chart again for some reason, but I urge you either to seach the site or take my word for it that the information I listed is there) In the grand scheme of things, millions of dollars is nothing at all in a $13 trillion debt, but every little bit couts. Rep. Paul's new budget cuts only $300 billion, less than one percent of the debt. But as useless, money-draing programs are cut and vital programs allowed to continue, the numbers add up and America can continue to be the world's dominate economic and political power. Cutting across the board simply doesn't take away as much as needed from useless programs, and hurts the programs that need the funding. These are just two of my contentions, and I will add others as my opponent uses his. Based off of the facts provided, I ask that the voters vote Pro and take my point of view. Unneeded programs must be cut in order for the U. S. retain its status as a force to be reckoned with. If we do not cut deep and fix our economy, America could lose its world status and this could devestate the world.