Reducing the defecit should be the United States primary economic concern

My opponent argues that defecit spending is not in favor of the American working/middle/lower-class, but this argument is iherently flawed. He chooses to only select certain defecit spending measures such as the War in Iraq and Afghanistan which doesn't help the pocket books of the American people but it does aid in their safety and security. According to Professor Phillip Bobbit of Columbia University in his book Terror and Consent, "roughly one third of all terrorist attack Globally between 1969 and 2001 were attacks against the United States, primarily on our embassies over seas. " So in accessing wether or not a war is beneficial for the United States we must not judge it off of the financial restraints but rather if the war has made the people safer. My opponent also brings up the Federal Reserve policies and how they have taken on defecit spending. But as James K Gailbraith, professor of economics at University of Texas at Austin states "To put things crudely, there are two ways to get the increase in total spending that we call "economic growth. " One way is for government to spend. The other is for banks to lend. Leaving aside short-term adjustments like increased net exports or financial innovation, that's basically all there is. Governments and banks are the two entities with the power to create something from nothing. If total spending power is to grow, one or the other of these two great financial motors--public deficits or private loans--has to be in action. For ordinary people, public budget deficits, despite their bad reputation, are much better than private loans. Deficits put money in private pockets. Private households get more cash. They own that cash free and clear, and they can spend it as they like. If they wish, they can also convert it into interest-earning government bonds or they can repay their debts. This is called an increase in "net financial wealth. " Ordinary people benefit, but there is nothing in it for banks. " To put things crudely, there are two ways to get the increase in total spending that we call "economic growth. " One way is for government to spend. The other is for banks to lend. Leaving aside short-term adjustments like increased net exports or financial innovation, that's basically all there is. Governments and banks are the two entities with the power to create something from nothing. If total spending power is to grow, one or the other of these two great financial motors--public deficits or private loans--has to be in action. " To put things crudely, there are two ways to get the increase in total spending that we call "economic growth. " One way is for government to spend. The other is for banks to lend. Leaving aside short-term adjustments like increased net exports or financial innovation, that's basically all there is. Governments and banks are the two entities with the power to create something from nothing. If total spending power is to grow, one or the other of these two great financial motors--public deficits or private loans--has to be in action. For ordinary people, public budget deficits, despite their bad reputation, are much better than private loans. Deficits put money in private pockets. Private households get more cash. They own that cash free and clear, and they can spend it as they like. If they wish, they can also convert it into interest-earning government bonds or they can repay their debts. This is called an increase in "net financial wealth. " Ordinary people benefit, but there is nothing in it for banks. " As far as my opponents observations- I believe the first one has already been addressed. The second that "a continuation of deficit spending will have dire effects on the American economy and inevitably drive taxes up as to re pay all the brrowed moneythe gobernment, not the people, spent in the past decade. This argument is inherently flawed. Professor Gailbraith continues to explain that "It's true that government can spend imprudently. Too much spending, net of taxes, may lead to inflation, often via currency depreciation--though with the world in recession, that's not an immediate risk. Wasteful spending--on unnecessary military adventures, say--burns real resources. But no government can ever be forced to default on debts in a currency it controls. Public defaults happen only when governments don't control the currency in which they owe debts--as Argentina owed dollars or as Greece now (it hasn't defaulted yet) owes euros. But for true sovereigns, bankruptcy is an irrelevant concept. When Obama says, even offhand, that the United States is "out of money," he's talking nonsense--dangerous nonsense. One wonders if he believes it. Nor is public debt a burden on future generations. It does not have to be repaid, and in practice it will never be repaid. Personal debts are generally settled during the lifetime of the debtor or at death, because one person cannot easily encumber another. But public debt does not ever have to be repaid. Governments do not die--except in war or revolution, and when that happens, their debts are generally moot anyway. " My opponents first contention states that "spending of these fus does not always translate into an acquisiton of good things for all the taxpayes"- Well to spend money in a way that is beneficial for everybody is next to impossible because when your elected you no longer just serve the conservative or liberal base but rather the people who all have differing view points. So my opponents idea of the Government pleasing everybody is very idealistic. His second Contention for the most part has already been adressed but he states thatthe Government is borrowing money from other nations. My understanding of the issue of debt is that most of the debt the united states holds is debt to itself and china one of ourbiggest lenders holds less than one thirteenth of our debt. also he Gailbraith article for which ill post the link will explain away the problem of borrowing. His contention 3 is contradiction of the rest of his case because if security is of utmost importance then going into debt to go into a war that at the time an overwhelming majority of the country supported to protect the american people is justified and not wasteful spending Now my basic arguments for defecit spending are this 1- That either the Gov or Banks must start lending, and with the banks still showing reluctance it is imperative that the government step up and use their position to circulate money. If money is not in circulation then the Economy becomes even worse, if the Government does not use defecit spending to bail out major coorporations suas Aig, Ford, Chrystler, GM, and several major banks as well as small banks on a community level, economic experts such as Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia university say that "our imaginations can't even begin to fathom the shape of our economy". 2 the public debt simply increases from one year to the next. In the entire history of the United States it has done so, with budget deficits and increased public debt on all but about six very short occasions--with each surplus followed by a recession. Far from being a burden, these debts are the foundation of economic growth. Bonds owed by the government yield net income to the private sector, unlike all purely private debts, which merely transfer income from one part of the private sector to another. If my opponents arguments are correct about taxes having to be raised to pay back this debt eventually why does our economic history not entail such a grave story. Every time we go into debt such as the case in the 1980's why did Regan not raise taxes to bring us out?