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

I apologize if you believe that I am chatizing you for refuting my arguments, in fact I would encourge it in order to have a good debate. No, I was simply bringing up that you seek to find flaws in my plan, yet fail to come up with your own arguments so that I could refute them. I urge you in the next speech to bring up your orignal ideas of why cutting across the board would best solve America's debt issue, and not to simply refute my arguments. I also would urge you to explain in your next speech why it is impossible to cut out complete departments and programs. I mentioned that anyone can work together to accomplish a goal if survival was threatened. Before entitlement programs were in place, many more Americans died at a younger age due to causes that could easily be prevented. Nowadays, more people can live longer because Americans have access to Healthcar and Social Security. I have the average age of death, and you will find that 100 years ago in was much lower than today. If their place of worship, family, and community did not seek to help a person in troubled times, the person would be left on their own and left to fend for themselves, which often lead to death. . http://www.infoplease.com... Yes, the CATO Institute shows how to maintian a relativly high level of security with reduced forces, but the more the better, and when America's citizens are at risk, it is best to keep them safe from all threats. By having the high Defense spending budget, it virtually eliminates and foriegn and at times domestic threat. Cutting the DoD's spending budget could lead to many deaths, and that is easily avoidable by spending that much. Yes, your idea was not relavent to this debate, and I refuted it to show you my idea of cutting deep into certain programs was a better solution than yours. It was meant to prove a point. If I had simply ignored them, it would not prove my point and only would proven yours. I do not feel it necessary to campaign for votes. I simply belive I should reinerate that I strongly believe in my resolution, which is that cutting deep in a few key programs will eventually solve the debt issue. That is just my way of trying to gain support and show that I believe that the voters should vote Pro. My arguments are valid and strong, while yours fail to show. I do not think that the voters are too stupid to understand what I am saying, and I am offended that you would say that. If you truly believe that I am treating the voters as a mindless flock, then you misunderstand me. Also, this is debate. org, not a yelling match. Chill dude, I'm not trying to get you all fired up. I apologize if I have offended you in any way, that was not my goal. I was simply expressing my points, and if you feel the need to continue, fine, I just thought I would let you know. Also, since my opponent fails to come up with any of his own arguments, carry over all my previous evidence from previous speeches. In conclusion, cutting deep into certain programs is the best way to solve America's debt issue. It eliminates money drains and supports needed programs. Cutting accross the board hurts needed programs and doesn't cut enough from unneeded ones.