Balanced Budget Amendment

I had a good time and learned a lot. On to the argument. We're not giving congress money for them to get along. We're giving them money so they get along only to get things done. It's irrelevant who in congress likes each other, but when the rifts being members are exacerbated by a restriction like a BBA, we get a deadlock due to opposing views and an unwillingness to compromise effectively, which I have proven is what happens. Next, I'm not equivocating on or contradicting the same idea, I'm speaking of two separate ones. First, I'm saying it's fine for congress to spend only what they take in; it's not a bad thing. I then say that the idea they should be forced to is not preferable. Also, my example is not an endless circle and it makes perfect sense. [revenue] - [expenditures] = [balance] [revenue]=10 [expenditures]= 15, but including ten being "deposited" into [balance] so the equation we get is: 10 - (15-10) = 5. As the phrase goes, numbers don't lie. I have proven it is possible to operate under a deficit while paying off debt. This is irrefutable. Gridlock argument: 1) I never said things in congress can't get much worse. As was observed during the debt ceiling crisis, they can very easily. 2) Obviously there would be no need for a debt ceiling, except under your war provision, but I wasn't saying that arguments over the debt ceiling were the only cause of deadlock, I listed it as an example. What a BBA would do is impose a mini debt ceiling every year, and as the limit for the year grew closer, politicians would become less and less flexible and willing to effectively compromise. This has been shown to happen and will continue to, and a BBA will exacerbate this disunity. 3) The credit downgrade was an example of the consequences of a deadlocked and stubborn congress. This supports my contention and is thus relevant. Regarding tax cuts, Reagan actually retracted many of his cuts before they even went into effect because of significant budget shortfall predictions that indicated the annual deficit as a percent of GDP would roughly triple in 6 years. Here is text proving my point regarding revenue increase: "This allowed for a major tax increase, the largest in four decades, in 1982. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised an average of $47 billion in each of the four years after it was enacted. Over the remainder of his presidency, Reagan would go on to sign a series of such increases" Also, since the Bush era tax cuts, tax revenue has actually dramatically fallen. For years after the cuts were introduced, tax revenues, both corporate and were negative, and went even further negative later. Moving on, my point about income disparity is relevant. Firstly, in any discussion about progressive taxation, income disparity is related. Secondly, countries with lower income disparities tend to have higher qualities of life. Sweden, one of the most equal nations in the world, ranks 20 places above the United States in the adjusted UN HDI Index, and beats us in education, quality of life, health, and was ranked as the number one political environment in the world, with the United States falling to an embarrassing and distant 14th. Clearly to improve the lives of its citizens, which government was created to do, income disparity must be decreased. Again, this is relevant because a decrease in Gini coefficient corresponds to an increase in GDP, creating more revenue, and allowing for funding for important programs. In summary: My points - BBA would create inefficiency in congress. I have in fact successfully proven, using relevant and recent examples, that when given a deadline or restriction, congress fails to effectively compromise, and ends up having existing political rifts exacerbated, creating deadlocks, and being bad for the American people. Revenue increases can counterbalance spending. This makes the most simple sense. If you bring in more, you can spend more without going into debt. This proves that a BBA is unnecessary because other measures can be taken without restricting congress' power and resulting in the negative consequences mentioned above. The debt is manageable where it is. Again, proven through math. We are making the debt payments on time and debt as a percent of GDP is projected to decrease in coming years. My opponent's points- Congress can live within its means. Sure it can, but that doesn't make a BBA necessary. This country has become the most powerful in the world without one; we're doing fine. Debt is bad, and if we must borrow loan payments and interest can be and must be balanced within the budget. I agree, but again, this doesn't necessitate a BBA. Debt payments are already part of the budget Congress should not have unlimited borrowing power for it has proven to be reckless and dangerous. Stimulus packages, continuing deficits and a runaway debt is crippling our country. We must reel it in. Congress does not have unlimited borrowing power. They only have as much power as is allowed them by lending nations. Also, the debt is not runaway, I have proved it is manageable. And, even though tax revenue decreased by 57% and individual tax revenue decreased by 22% in '09, the deficit has not been increasing at this rate. So when the economy recovers normal levels, the annual deficit will in fact be drastically reduced, again without need for a BBA. To conclude: All of my points still stand, and I have successfully refuted all of my opponent's. As Burden of Proof resides with the pro, this was all I had to do. However, seeing as I have both done this and protected my own contentions, I have won this debate, and you should vote con. (I hope that doesn't sound too self-important or pompous, it's just how I learned to conclude an argument) PS. Once again I want to sincerely thank my opponent for a very interesting round, and hope we can debate again. I feel that very good points were made on both sides of the argument (though I hope a couple more on mine) and can honestly say I leave with much more knowledge on this important subject than I came in with. I look forward to possible debates between us in the future, and hope that we have such an opportunity. Thanks again!