increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA

-----Rebuttals----- "You definitely do well in stressing that spending cuts can make a signifiant improvement on the deficit." Thanks Pro. R1: Feasibility To win this debate, one of us has to better prove how to improve the fiscal health of the U.S. Government. Pro has to argue for tax hikes. The budget cuts I promoted in R2 are a legitimate alternative to improve the U.S. Government's fiscal situation. My budget solution somewhat resembles Senator Rand Paul's FY2014 Budget: "A Clear Vision to Revitalize America". [1] This budget was defeated in the Senate 18-81. However, President Obama's budget was defeated and gained zero votes. [2] So the ideas I suggest basically got 18 more Senate votes than the President's plan. And seriously, what is more viable: raising middle class taxes somewhere between $1,000 and $4,000 (maximum), or spending reductions? Let's say that we decided, to close the deficit: we would raise taxes $1 for every $3 in spending cuts. This is even more conservative than President Obama's plan. This would still be a $1,000 hike for middle class families. In the 1984 election, the Democratic candidate Mondale also proposed raising taxes for middle class taxpayers. He lost by 49 states. [3] A total of 73% of Americans believe that the deficit is caused by overspending. [4] So I proposed reasonable budget reductions. Credit cards in the private sector have a fraud rate of 0.05%. [5] The Medicare voucher scheme that I proposed would basically give each senior a voucher, that would allow them the freedom to choose which health insurance plan they could have. They would have the same health care as their Congressmen. In a consumer driven health care system, the incentives to crack down on fraud exist, and the people would be responsible for their own money, leading to reductions in waste and fraud. [6] The intention behind a policy doesn't really matter. It is the policy in action what matters. Sure the "Department of Education" and "Department of Energy" sound nice, but do they really have an impact? Apparently not. The Department of Commerce, Energy, etc. are usually just involved with subsidies and corporate welfare. Most industries in America are responsible for their own research and development. The profit motive is the driver behind these actions. Productivity gains increase output and thus profits. Energy and agriculture can provide their own R&D in a competitive free market economy, especially where government taxes and regulates less. R2: Budget Numbers Most of the figures I provide come from credible sources. The majority of the budget numbers I provide are from the White House Budget, Rand Paul's Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, the programs in mention, or think tanks.In other words, empirical evidence. Conclusion I presented an alternative path for Washington to take: spending reductions. Most of them already proposed and put into legislation, in different forms. Spending reductions are key for the federal government to achieve fiscal health. Tax hikes, especially to the tone of $4,200+ per middle class family (almost a doubling in income taxes as proved in R2) is totally unrealistic. It would be political suicide.Today it is July 4th, a special day in America's history. It is Independence Day. The taxes imposed by the British angered the colonists and were a driver behind their actions. To impose steep taxes would just seem ironic.So increasing middle class taxes by over $4,000 is not necessary for the financial well being of the USA. On the contrary, we should enact resposible and significant spending cuts to improve the U.S. federal budget's health and financial well being. Sources [1] (http://www.paul.senate.gov...) [2] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com... [3] http://www.nationaljournal.com... [4] http://www.gallup.com... [5] http://www.kansascityfed.org... [6] http://themedicalstrategist.com...