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

First off, while I did mean that cutting across the board, i. e. . 5% of Federal funding from all programs, was what I meant in the resolution, since I did not state it I apologize. Unfortunately, your idea is simply a mix of both of the debt solutions listed in the resolution, and therefore not relevant to this debate. I'm going to first contradict my opponents arguments and then move on to my own. ^^^There are two problems with Pro's contentions. The first is that it is politically impossible for most if not al of the programs Pro mentioned to be eliminated. The political winds simply have not shifted that far to allow entire departments to be cut, especially when those departments are the ONDP, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Education. While I do agree that these should be completely cut, it simple cannot happen. --- Nothing is impossible my friend. Our debt is steadily climbing, and though there are a few devout supporters for every program or department, when survival becomes an issue even the worst of enemies can work together to remain intact. It may seem politically impossible, but when the situation arises, I'm sure that more people will be for cutting these programs out completely than for keeping them intact, or even taking our a significant percentage. ^^^The second problem is that Pro's cuts don't go far enough. There is not a single government program or agency that does not have waste. But the real problem is the entitlement programs. Social security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Pro did not even bother to mention these. Nor, for that matter, did he mention the insane amount of money the department of defense receives. --- I did not list those entitlement programs and the Dept. of Defense for one key reason: America depends on these programs. Though it would be ideal for America to simply shut down Medicare, Medicaid, and social security, many millions of people depend on this programs for survival. 10.6 million Americans depend on Social security alone to survive. What would happen if Social Security was cut? Would they be thrown out on the streets, left to die starving, sick, and cold? No, America depends on these programs to continue to provide Americans with the help they need. Also, in relation to the Dept. of Defense, I did not include that in the programs to cut out because America depends on its military to survive. Sure, we spend a lot of money on weapons, supplies, and military technologies, but these things are necessary to keep America's hegemony intact, and thus protecting ourselves from any foriegn, and sometimes domestic, threat. If the DoD's funding were to be cut, America could lose its power and protection, allowing for many to die. . http://www.usatoday.com... ^^^Without cuts in these monstrous programs, nothing will change. ---I agree in the fact that these programs are huge and constitute for a large portion of our spending, but things can still change. By cutting out all unecessary programs completly, we are face with a situtation where over a period of time America can get back on its feet and continue to be a world leader. I urge the voters to realize this fact, and vote Pro. Now on to my points: Since I answered my opponents case and showed why Pro was right, I'll just extend my previous evidence. Contention 1: Usefulness Many of the Federal programs that have been discussed have not provided any real benefit for Americans. The U. S. Botanic Garden does not provide any real benefit to the American people, except to look pretty. This program could easily be cut, and save the Federal government more than $7 million a year. Also, the African Development Program is throwing money at a problem that could easily be solved with long-term investment. This action could save the U. S. millions, perhaps billions, of dollars in a short period of time. Contention 2: Money Drain By not providing any real benefit to America, many programs need to be cut completyl and cease to be money drains. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is another example of a such money drain, constantly taking money and using it to fund a program that is not needed any longer. In a faltering economy, every little bit helps, and money drains suck away money that could be better used for other things. My oponent has yet to really create his own arguments. Instead, he is simply refuting mine and trying to compose arguments out of this. In conclusion, I urge voters to vote Pro for al the reasons provided. Cutting deep into certain programs is the only way for America to remain a world power and to provide for Americans everywhere.