Question: Does Reducing the Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Lead to Job Creation?

Ron Paul's economic policies offer a stark contrast to Barack Obama's, rooted in the principles of the Austrian School versus Keynesian Economics. The Austrian School, championed by economists like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul, advocates for sound money, free markets, private property rights, and a liberal society. It's noteworthy that Austrian economists accurately predicted the housing bubble collapse and the economic crisis, unlike the Keynesian School, which is often criticized for its role in economic downturns. Keynesian economics, stemming from John Maynard Keynes' theories, promotes government intervention during recessions, economic stimulus through money printing, and welfare programs. However, these policies have been linked to economic failures globally, leading some to compare Keynesianism to "witch doctors in medicine."

Ron Paul's approach to the economy involves providing sound money, protecting consumers from fraud, and fostering conditions for genuine economic growth. He supports small businesses and job creation, emphasizing that increased small business opportunities correlate with higher employment rates. Paul's plan includes establishing sound fiscal and monetary policies, decreasing regulations that hinder small business growth, abolishing the minimum wage, and repealing laws that mandate employment terms. He also proposes simplifying the tax code and reducing the corporate tax rate to encourage investment and risk-taking.

Paul's fiscal policy aims to reduce the national debt, cut federal spending, and return the country to solvency by presenting a balanced budget and refusing to raise the debt ceiling. His monetary policy involves auditing and eventually ending the Federal Reserve, which he believes is responsible for many economic problems in the U.S. By contrast, Barack Obama's policies have led to increased national debt, more regulations, and difficulties in starting businesses, while contributing to inflation and dollar devaluation.

In conclusion, Ron Paul's policies, with their focus on regulatory relief, spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget, offer a significant departure from Obama's approach and are designed to address the economic challenges facing America.

You assume that a true democracy exists in the US? Please, the US is just as corrupt and has simply bastardized the democratic process in a way acceptable enough for the US populace not to do anything about it. Modern politics is about placating the masses, lying, deception, all in order to serve the interests of oneself and the donors aka, the ones doing the bribing. The US is no different than Russia or any country, except that the corruption used to be better hidden. As for your two form system. I read the article. And at the end it acknowledges that the reason the filing system became so complicated is because of 97 of meddling by politicians. Given time the same will happen to your flat tax. Also, I take it you have never lived and worked overseas because filing my US taxes from Korea has always required special consideration. I don't fill out W2 forms my income is also taxed by the Korean government. Your two form system isn't going to cut it for everyone, it's not as simple as you think because most people don't account for the lesser known circumstances of other citizens nor does it account for the tax laws of other countries. It's a lie that people pushing for a flat tax use to sell the idea. Your claims that the progressive tax is killing economic drive is ridiculous. There is no proof of that. In fact the US is still leading when it comes to economic strength worldwide. The flat tax won't make it more difficult to create loop holes because the people making the law are corrupt. I mentioned Russia earlier because it shows that the flat tax is just as susceptible to corruption. Anyone who thinks the US is some sort of bastion of justice and democracy is fooling themselves. The US has legalized bribery of government officials! How am I wrong about the idiocy of the general public and their being affected by what they will perceive as unfair. It's not just the US the world is full of oafs. Most people the world over don't really have the attention span to really figure out what is going with the government. If Americans really took an active consideration to what the government did then C-span would be the most watched network. It isn't. There a shows that interview random people on the street and demonstrate how little they know about anything. This happens in every country because people just don't care enough to figure out what's going on. This is part of the reason the media is the way it is and why sensationalism sells. The progressive tax panders to the basic feelings of the growing poor and much of the shrinking middle-class. If there's one thing people notice is that the rich are getting richer and everyone else is getting poorer and you aren't going to sell these people on a flat tax. It won't be a minority that will be angry. The other part to this idiot people observation has to do with the two parties. Democrats and Republicans. Both are idiots. Typically it's republicans that support the flat tax and Democrats who oppose it. Partisan politics are like two religions with both sides often blindly pledging loyalty to one side. It's an idiot fight that changes nothing and this flat tax is just another example of some nonsense fight. The current progressive tax was recently "reformed" by the republicans and it's a mess full of corruption enabling loopholes that many people are upset about with many saying that it overwhelming benefits the richest in the country while placing a huge debt on the country. The Republicans did that and yet it's the Republicans that want a flat tax? How's that gonna work out? It's like hiring the thief who broke into your house to change your locks. A republican wanting his party to change the tax code his party help break is idiocy. Changing the tax code will further piss off the Democrats and when the new flat tax fails in it's promises like every promise by any politician then its gonna piss off more people too. The rich are going to take advantage of everyone else because they have the means to do so. The progressive tax gives the illusion that the government is trying to do something about it. And even if you manage to get rid of all the corrupt lawmakers in some revolution the growing poor and the disgruntled shrinking middle class people are going to want reparations, they will want justice, they are going to want the progressive tax. And the upper class is going to give it to them because they know what's what and that it will pacify them.

Thank you very much for your argument. My opponent makes his case by saying, "study after study has shown that raising the minimum wage does not have a negative effect on employment." This is simply a falsehood. Many reputable sources have found the disastrous effects of raising the minimum wage that I presented in round 2. I will show a few here: 1. A study done by the Southern Economic Journal, under economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser, found that raising the minimum wage has absolutely no positive effect on poverty. "When we then simulate the effects of a proposed federal minimum wage increase from $7.25 to $9.50 per hour, we find that such an increase will be even more poorly targeted to the working poor than was the last federal increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour" (1) This study found no change in poverty, one of the studies more favorable to my opponent's side. Many find quite the opposite of what he claims. 2. A study by renowned economist David Neumark shows that a minimum wage hike actively kills jobs. "Minimum-wage leg- islation will increase wages at the cost of modest but significant reductions in employment". (2) Neumark did not elaborate on whether the unemployment out-weighed the wage gains, but it does not matter. Even if raising the minimum wage had no effects on poverty whatsoever, that implies what this study does; that some people are getting paid more, while other are laid off. This supports my argument, because while minimum wage employees may struggle to get by, they are much better off then those without jobs. (See "True Poverty", Round Two) 3. A third study, reported by the Daily Caller, report a University of Massachusetts study, led by Professor Bob Pollin, finds the same. He says "[Minimum wage] not a cure-all to poverty. In fact, the biggest source of low-income poverty is that people don't have jobs at all." (3) The study also finds "no statistically significant evidence that a higher minimum wage helped reduce hardship" Indeed, despite my opponent's claims, studies almost invariably show either no or a negative effect due to the hiking of the minimum wage. My opponent says of Republicans expectations of the minimum wage, "But such dire predictions have never materialized". However, history shows they have. 63% of states with minimum wage above the national average are suffering unemployment above the national average. (4) As reported by the Wall Street Journal, 300,00 unskilled teen workers lost their jobs following the 2008 minimum wage hike. (5) And check out this chart, comparing Alaska's economic growth after the recession, before and after the minimum wage hike: http://www.epi.org... As you can see, Alaska's post-recession job growth was phenomenal compared to the rest of the country, until the minimum wage hike, where a noticeable difference in growth is perceived, where growth should have been accelerating as the recession grew farther away. My opponent cites the "multiplier" effect, which states that the additional money workers would get from a minimum wage increase would be used to grow other business. This, of course, is a roundabout effect. The same money is stunting job growth and leading to layoffs. WIthout the hike, money is already in the hands of job-makers. In conclusion, raising the minimum wage kills jobs, and does not in any overall way reduce poverty. Getting paid 7,25 an hour may be tough, but getting paid absolutely nothing is a whole lot worse. I look forward to my opponent's next argument. (1) http://www.people.vcu.edu... (2) http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu...- (3) http://dailycaller.com... (4) http://reason.com... (5) http://online.wsj.com...

Yes, I stand by all I have claimed. Reforming the laws in the way which you want to reform them is not the solution to the problem. Making a law stricter towards criminals will reduce criminal activity, but you want to make the law less strict, which would make many people happier, including criminals. Reforming the system which enforces the law of the land is indeed better than reforming the original law. The system that enforces the law (in this case, the police) did not create the law, so the law is not the system. Actually, if police officers are trained properly then there are no loopholes because according to you and your new source, it is the officers who are the problem. So once again, the federal government's authority has little to do with the faults of the police officers who cannot properly enforce the law of the land. The federal government created the law for the people, not to abuse them. It is not responsible if the state governments have corrupt officers working for the police departments. Thus, there is no reason for its authority to be decreased. Unfortunately this is the last round so you will not be able to explain to me how the federal government is at fault with how that individual officer (working for the state government, not the federal) cruelly arrested the girl. What happened would not have happened if a reasonable, properly trained officer stopped her so is the federal government's authority to blame? Not at all. It is that one officer who decided to ruin the girl's life and his supervisors are also the responsibility of the state government, not the federal. The policy being redundantly "very complex and complicated" does not make it relevant. My previous argument stands as to why stop and frisk is irrelevant to this particular debate. Current situations of countries: 1) Nation's debt: yes, every time Obama smiles it increases by $100B. However, decreasing the authority of the federal government will not help lower it. In fact, if the authority of the federal government increased then the national debt would have more of a chance of going down. For example, if the federal government enforced much higher taxes nationwide then the taxpayers would go far in helping the nation's financial status (yes I know this sounds horrible and would cause riots, but it would work). 2) The unemployment rate is dropping, so the federal government must be doing something right, right? Right. 3) Your source does not measure economic stand. It measures economic freedom. A higher economic freedom does not mean a better economy or economic stand. If that was the case then Estonia would have a better economy than the U.S. I think we can agree that Estonia does not have a higher economic stand, just more economic freedom. 4) Based on more recent figures, the rates of people without health care are dropping. Another point for the federal government. http://www.census.gov... http://www.census.gov... Based on the evidence that both you and I provided, the amount of authority that the federal government currently possesses is not harming the nation. My original premise stands: the authority of the federal government helps the nation run smoothly and properly. There is no guarantee based on anything you said that indicates that substantially decreasing the federal government's authority would be beneficial. There is no evidence provided of the federal government abusing its power, only of police institutions which are the responsibility of state governments. There is also no evidence of anyone involved in the federal government abusing their power for own's beneficiary. Each of your arguments spoke of policing issues, not those of the federal government. For the final time, the NYPD is the New York State's responsibility, not the federal government's. Instead of reforming the entire national legal system just so NY cops can be competent at their jobs, the issue must be addressed by NY state itself. C) The U.S. federal government should not substantially decrease its authority.

C1: Will raise teenage unemployment source: http://www.house.gov...I would like to note the lower minimum wage actually brought unemployment down, and the raise rose unemployment. "Two years ago Mr. Neumark and William Wascher, a Federal Reserve economist, reviewed more than 100 academic studies on the impact of the minimum wage. They found "overwhelming" evidence that the least skilled and the young suffer a loss of employment when the minimum wage is increased." [2] And guess what? the least skilled are teenagers. The study shows 1 70 cent increase --------> 300,000 jobs lost. C2: Raises Overall unemployment"Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 1,000,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. " [1] Out of the many studies proving the minimum wage raise hurts the economy, only 1 said it was good, another study tried to duplucate the results with no conclusion near the same. The study was debunked. [3] "With all of this recessions significant labor market problems, and the expensive federal efforts to offset them, its too bad that the minimum-wage law added so many people to the list of those who today cannot find jobs." [4] This makes logical sense, let me prove this:Let's say pe hour I am worth about 7$. If you rose the minimum wage to 7.25 or 9$ then I am out of a job. Hiring me would be charity. Most employers are not able to afford this, so basically it disqualifies me from a job. C3: Mininium wages increase teenage dropoutsA raise in the minimum wage not only raises unemployment, but forces highschoolropouts. [5] This study actually proves any increasein the minimum wage increases highschool dropouts. [6] Now what is the reason? Money. The igher wages influence them to drop out of school, the their eyes have $ signs in them. Now, this doesn't gerentee they find jobs. Actually, most of them never find minimum wage jobs when they drop out. [1, 6] This means we have less education, and well frankly a worse country. C4: The minimum wage will raise prices"The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year." [7] This makes sense. If you raise the cost of labor it costs more to actually make the product, the the employer must actually charge more to make the same profit. As the minimum wage increases, not only do companies fire employees, they also raise prices to help the budget. And in the end, this will make it harderfor people, especially poor people, to buynecessary things. That in turn reduces GDP growth because there is less buying, and know, this will plungeus into another recession. [8]Oh btw the reason I did not quote the last part of the paragraoh from 8 is because he plagarised me first. SO thats my former words from an old debate, so as ts mine origionally I did not quote it. Conclusion:My opponent will falsely use the "general welfare clause" Its funny as unemployment =/= general welfare, a 5$ wage is better than no wage. My opponent really then is saying more dropouts, higher prices, and higher unemployment is general welfare, so if he uses this argument it is basically False. Minimum wage hikes lead to more unemployment and higher prices which is bad for the economy. Also as kids drop out we have a less edcated country. VOTE CON, VOTE ECONOMY!sources:http://www.house.gov... [1]http://online.wsj.com... [2]David and William Wascher, The Effect of New Jersey's Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-food Employment: A Re-evaluation using Payroll Records. National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, 1995. [3]http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... [4]http://www.nationalcenter.org... [5]Neumark, David and William Wascher, The Effects of Minimum Wages on Teenage Employment and Enrollment: Evidence from Matched CPS Surveys. National Bureau for Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, 1995. [6]"Increasing the Minimum Wage" P u b l i c P o l i c y Institute of C a l i f o r n i a, may 2000. [7] PDF http://www.debate.org... [8]

Rebuttal and Analysis"Um my stance thing isnt negateing anything. I'm clarifiyng things."Passing a tax rate with a constitutional amendment has nothing to do with whether or not a flat tax is the best tax system. "This is not true because I make a billion dollars the goverment takes away lets say 20%, but then the poor people get 20% taken awat too. thats not 100%."That is if the tax rate is 20%. Since we are not arguing a specific rate and we are arguing a flat tax in general, it could possibly be 100%."Your for a national sales tax instead."No, I'm not and I never claimed to be. I am for states and local governments deciding their own forms of taxation as long as they don't tax income. The federal government would be funded by a tax on the states rather than a direct tax on the people. "You 0% plan still doesnt work, they have to buy supplies aka your sales tax. So either way you can gelp or hurt them."The difference between an income tax and a sales tax is, a sales tax is an optional tax and an income tax is not. You decide to pay a sales tax by buying goods."They only own a percentage of the income, you own the rest."Is it not immoral for government to own money you worked for?"A national sales tax is a risky system that may not raise near enough money to support all our needs in defense, education, health care, etc."I am not advocating for a national sales tax so it doesn't matter if it could raise enough money."Consumer spending, which drives a thriving economy, would likely drop as people save and invest more rather than spend. Need more examples?"In an article, "The naked stimulus: Why savings stimulate more than spending," on CNNMoney the author explains why savings are more beneficial to the economy then spending, "Over long periods, it's savings––not consumer spending––that finance the investments in mainframes, robots and other capital equipment that enhance productivity and drive economic growth. "President Obama keeps saying that only consumption counts," says Allan Meltzer, the distinguished economist at Carnegie Mellon. "It's foolish. Of course the money that people save doesn't go under the mattress. It goes to individuals to buy a house, or to businesses to build a plant."Let's examine how savings translate into investments, and hence into a crucial source of spending––for the future, the most crucial. When people save, they either purchase stocks or bonds, or they deposit the cash in the banking system. When they buy newly-issued securities, those savers provide companies with the cash to purchase equipment, or buy factories and call centers via acquisitions. When they buy CDs or deposit money in savings accounts, the bank typically lends that money either to corporate customers that spend it to expand, or to the government by purchasing treasuries––and once again, the funds are quickly spent."[11]"E. Burnum. The Federal law trumps state laws. So they can intervene whenever they want to. It's in our constitution."First of all, I was not debating this point. I was just pointing to the fact that most of the corruption in government comes at the federal level but if corruption does come about in state government, it is much easier to correct than at the federal level. Since pro brought this up, I will debate it. Pro is referring to article 6 of the constitution, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."[12] This clearly says that the federal government only has power over the states on matters delegated to the federal government by the constitution. The tenth amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"[13] gives the states the right to the powers not delegated to the federal government so in some cases the federal government can trump state law but not in the case of tax rates. [11]http://finance.fortune.cnn.com...[12]http://www.usconstitution.net...[13]http://www.usconstitution.net...

Also this video talks about C1 and 2 http://www.youtube.com...Before refuting your arguments I will show my own. Also you broke the acceptance only rule. C1: It increases teenage unemployment. Notice the minimum wage goes up, and the unemploymet does too. Let me explain this better, to an employer a job is worth a certian amount, lets say 5$ an hour. So cleaning the restrooms benifits e employer 5$ an hour, but he has to hire someone for 8$ an hour. So he is losing 3$ an hour if he hires soeone, therefor he wont hire anyone because he is losing money. And on average teenagers skillsaren't worth 8$ an hour, and hiring them would be charity, which is good, but most employers aren't in a financial position to do so. C2: It incrases minority unempoymentIt is explained in the video above. Also most minorities, aloneg with the teenagers, are not well educated. ANd on average minority skills arent worth 8$ an hour, therefore wont get hired. (not rasict I am a minority)C3: Increases overall unemployment Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. [1]So the raise in the was cost thouthands of jobs. Increasing unemployment. The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs. The most fundamental principle of economics is 'supply and demand'. In the case of labor, this means that the supply of workers goes up as wage goes up, and the demand for workers by employers goes down as the wage goes up. For example, imagine a janitorial job was advertised for hire. If the wage is $100 per hour, thousands of people would want the job. If the wage was $1 per hour, you probably wouldn't find anyone to do it. Conversely, if the government forced the employer to pay at least $7 per hour, the employer might decide not to hire a janitor at all, instead opting to have other staff pick up the duties. Thus, a job would be lost because of the minimum wage. Another example is restaurant employment. A manager might have $10,000 in her monthly budget to hire bus persons. If the wage is set at $7 per hour, the manager may only be able to hire 10 bus people instead of 15. Setting a mandated wage limit disrupts market forces of supply and demand. Just because there is no minimum wage doesn't mean companies can pay whatever they want. Would you work a dishwashing job that paid 25 cents per hour? Would anyone? If they raised the wage to $4 per hour, they might be able to hire a high school student. Consider some highly skilled jobs such as accountant, lawyer, and engineer. Do these people make $5.15 an hour? Obviously, the answer is no. Market factors of supply and demand determine how many jobs are available and what each job would pay. In summary, as the minimum wage goes up, the number of people employed goes down. When the minimum wage goes down, the number of people employed goes up. Keep in mind: the minimum wage only applies if someone is employed. [2]Same thing. C4: The minimum wage out sources jobs When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper. There has been a lot of attention lately on the subject of job "outsourcing", where U.S. companies hire foreign workers instead of Americans. When businesses outsource American jobs, they're not doing it because they hate America; they're doing it because they're trying to cut costs. When you increase the price of labor in America, you create an additional incentive for businesses to hire Canadian, Mexican, or other foreign workers. The best way to stop outsourcing of jobs is to provide the best conditions for doing business in America. A minimum wage just makes things tougher for companies to do business in America. Remember that American companies may have no choice but to outsource with the high cost in the U.S.--they may go out of business entirely if they can't cut costs to a level that's competitive with foreign competitors. [2]Well that was a simple answerC5: Hurts small buisness in turn ncreasing unemployment for teens, minorities, and overall as small buissness create most of the jobs in this counryThe minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business. Many people believe businesses have endless supplies of cash and can easily withstand minimum wage increases or other cost increases. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case. Over 90 percent of businesses fold within the first few years. Every time there is a recession, thousands of businesses go under. Restaurants, which pay wages at or near the minimum wage level, have the highest rate of failure of any business type. Anytime you increase the costs of businesses, you push them closer to the edge. Let's take an example. Imagine a small neighborhood hardware store. This hardware store isn't going to have the logistics and economy of scale advantages of say, Wal-Mart; thus, it must charge more. It probably makes up the price difference with better service. When you raise the minimum wage, it increases the operating costs for that hardware store even more. Thus, it must raise it's prices to cover costs. Eventually, prices get so high that customers conclude that shopping there isn't worth the additional cost. Slowly, the local hardware store is driven out of business.Rebuttals"So my first point then. What we see in society is that people actually need to fight to get a job which means those that want a job realise the importance things like good qualifications and gaining experience."We agree, but how are those people going to get jobs if the minimum wage increases unemployment, increases teen unemployment, hurts minority roups, and out sources jobs? Sure one could get a job, but it would er with a minimum wage. Also you make it sound like having a job is a right, false, it is a privalege, no law grants it as a right. "It also will not mean that those who are not working quite so hard at the moment will just be put off because of the competition."Well how does it make competition? If everyone is unemployed and their jobs are now in china then there is no competition in the american jobs. "The state has a duty of care towards it's citizens and it has a duty of care towards minorities and teens to make sure that the workplace is a place of equality whether that bee in terms of age, race, gender, sexual preference or disability. "You fell into my trap. There is no law that says the govermet should care for its people. In no law whatsoever. The government is not obligated to take care of its citizens, as citizens have a responsibility to take care of themselves. The government has some basic obligations to its citizens. These include protection from foreign enemies, providing justice, and maintaining certain services. It is not, however, obligated to fully take care of its citizens. Citizens are ultimately responsible for themselves. We do not live in a nanny state, and I doubt anyone would wish to do so. I am running out of space, I will add on next round. sources:http://www.house.gov... [1] http://www.balancedpolitics.org... [2]

Point 1: With more profit, why would a company decrease wages? To earn prfit, why would a company decrease wages? For the first one, with more profir, that allows for an INCREASE in wages and more ability to hire, thus reducing unemployment. For the second, if the company decreased wages, the employee would leave and seek better employment. That is a significant advantage of Capitalism. If someone is not satisfied witht their job, they can find another, thus companies are forced to provide good working conditions and high wages to ensure the employee does not leave. In Third World countries, countries do not have fully developed economic systems. They have repressed, totalitarian forms of Government that "set up" and "allow" these working conditions. We cannot use them as an example for that very reason. It's the totalitarian, backward Government and Economy, not the Corporations. The fact that they have jobs in third-world countires is a blessing to them. What they consider good working conditions and what we consider good working conditions are two totally different things, and to them, the jobs to Apple are some of the best in China for the working class. And plus, many multi-national corporations, like Walmart, are making strides to help the workers and the communities of these countries. Their help has helped thousands of people survive hunger that without them, would have died. Companies are owned by CEOs and stockholders. These are the "people" behind corporations. They represent the "body" of the company. The corporation functions as a group and a corporation works no different than any other group of people. The body of people make decisions, formulate solutions to problems, and do other things that are characteristic of people. They should be considered people. Point 2: How can you be outmaneuvered by management? Again, if you have enough complains you can get another job. This isn't really a pro side to trade unions, and I will explain cons later. Here is what I meant about the trade union salary argument. When unionized workers are employed, they have to be paid a certain wage set by the Union. And that wage keeps getting higher through wage. The business is not allowed to decide when wages are, so when they are running a loss, they still have to pay higher pay and raises to the unionized workers, thus making the loss bigger. Sooner or later, the loss will get too big and the company will go out of business. Thus, the unionized worker has to go to lower-wage work. Now you might be asking, what about the non-unionized workers. Well the majority of workers in the factories are unionized. I will explain more about the minimum wage later, but to preview, they do not increase the standard of living for workers because one, they are rarelt needed, and two, you should be paid for performance, not just time. And the disparity between a larger company and the right to a standard of living is false because being a part of a larger company does not hinder the standard of living, but in fact helps it, and two, there is no "right" to a good standard of living. That is a responsibility, not a priviledge. Again, companies cannot write in unionized employees even when their perfromance is bad because they are unionized, so the complaint has to first go through the union before anything can be done about it, and the union always sides with the worker, so when a company tries to fire someone for sloth, they cannot because they find themselves in a legal battle over it with the labor unions and they do not want to waste the money. They are stuck and in a dilemma. That's why your argument here is flawed. Point 3: Teenage workers are not supposed to make high wages. That is for later in life. If you give them high wages at the beginning, then there will not be much incentive later on to work because they will not be making much more money. Teens do not deserve the same amount because they rarely work as hard. Their "sloth" rate is higher than adults. And plus, teens do not need all of the money that adults do. Most of their expenses are paid for. And they have a lot of bargaining power because the teen can simply go next door. In other words, he can work somewhere else if the company does not provide enough. Having a minimum wage is determinal to the teen because it encourages the "something for nothing" mindset that is killing this nation (both the United States and England). This is a main argument. Your argument does not really explain the teens aren't lazy argument. You haven't refuted anything. Teens shouldn't rely on their parents for room and board if they are not in high school and are not going to college, but they do becuase they can lazy. So many tenns and now 20-year olds are in their parents' basement because they are to lazy to look around for a job. Their parents' encouragenment does no good. And having a minimum wage does not fix this problem either becuase teens don't want to work. The minimum wage would have to be A LOT higer for teens to actually need to use it. Point 4: Teens should be able to balance school and work. If they can't, they shouldn't work. But those that can should have the ability to do so, and the Government should not stop them. It should be up to them, but they should decide whether or not they are up to it. First of all, you are still supposed to put school ahead of work. You still complete your schooling. You got that part wrong. Second of all, having a job would not mean quitting high school. Whereas school activities may be a liitle fun, maybe exercising, or somewhat educationally benefitial if the person plans on doing that activity in later life, working in the teenage years produces hard work and preservance, teaches good working skills that last a life time and help make sure the person holds down a job for the rest of his or her life, and the job will most certainly either be the job he will be doing later on in life (hopefully not), be practice for a higher job, or just a job to help with working skills, having a job is a very good thing to do as a teenager. It can also be very rewarding, not just financially. If there are any workers conditions laws that you would like to debate specifically, please tell me. I can't think of any.

1) C4C My opponent is missing basic logic. I didn't claim that C4C resulted in 988,000 lost jobs, but that all the temporary jobs left along with hundreds of thousands of other jobs. Voters should also realize that my opponent has not denied that all these jobs were TEMPORARY, like seasonal workers around winter solstice. Since they are not perminate, they don't mean crap. 2) Job creation While not every job is a result of Bush's individual policies, the whole picture can be shown as his responsibility and as such, his success. The best thing that any president can do, is simply get out of the way. While Bush was no libertarian, and didn't suscribe to laissez faire. He was a lot closer to it than Obama the Great is, and that is why we saw a much better economy under him than we do with Obama the Great. His tax cuts and derugulations are the key reasons for the success. And of course, as soon as the democrats took congress, they fuckked it all up. 3) Money saved Yes, it does involve the deficit. The very fact that the deficit is growing means that more money is being spent than saved. All the "predictions" that my opponent's blogs suggest mean jack shiit when the real numbers show that Obama the Great is spending more than he is saving. 4) Wars The money spent on the wars is far from wasted. Apart from creating tens of thousands of jobs, it is helping remove dictators from around the world. The entire Arab spring can be traced to the collapse of Saddam. Once the people of various nations found that dictators can fall and the people can survive without them, they rose up. Unless my opponent wants to argue that dictators are good, which wouldn't surprise me given his love for Obama the Great, then he really has nothing to stand on in this regard.

"And then, in 2008 when the Recession hit, the Democrats were in charge again. "The democrats were freshly elected yes, but whose policies were in effect? Tax cuts for the rich from G. W. Bush. In fact, the recession actually struck before the dems were actually in office. This statement shows a fundemental lack of understanding of how econmic policy affects the economy. And just a general lack of knowledge regarding economics. "In contrast, during the totally rad 90s, the Republicans were in charge from 1995 until 2001. This was a period of economic growth. "Actually, Clinton was in charge from 1992-2000. Clinton raised taxes for the wealthy, as I said. You're actually helping my case here. "And let me put it this way: a President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) can't be as liberal as you think he is. "I don't see how this is relevant. "I'm sorry if I didn't cover most of your points. But I didn't understand half of that. "Just because you don't understand my argument, doesn't mean that it's wrong. Secondly, as I have the BOP, you must address all of my points. "John D. Rockefeller gave a lot of money to charity. My source for that claim is Wikipedia. J. C. Penney tithed 90% of his money. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both gave billions to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And ultimately, you are proven wrong in this point by "The Giving Pledge," a pledge for billionaires that they will give most of their money to charity. According to the Huffington Post (a ridiculously liberal newspaper), 81 billionaires have already signed the pledge. "You've named a whopping 4 of the countless wealthy americans (Two of which are supporters of the democratic party, the gates and buffett). "So what is the difference between the rich giving freely and the rich being taxed by the government, you may ask? Well, when the rich give money to the Government, they're giving their money to an inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt entity, which probably wastes 50% of the money it receives. "This is just a totally unbased assertion, that is likely the personal, uneducated, opinion of the Con. Furthermore, giving money to charity exempts you from certain taxes. So your point is 100% invalid. "Also, let me ask you: is it wrong for wealthy people to have their wealth, to make as much money as they do? "This is a loaded question (loaded question logical fallacy). . http://en.wikipedia.org...If you asked "Should the wealthy pay a higher percent of their net worth in taxes than the poor? " Then I would say, yes. It is their social obligation, as they dont necissarily deserve all of the money they have. Look at the Walton children. They didn't work a single day of their life, yet 6 of them are in the top ten richest americans list according to forbes magazine. Do they really deserve to be multi-billionaires? Even though none of them have ever done any real work? "Finally, you said that Americans are getting poorer. That's simply not true! "A) I did not say that. B) Sources? C) The income gap is larger than it's ever been. My opponent tries to dismiss my arguments without sources or even thorough rebuttal.

Ah, a nice, relatively short debate.MW = minimum wage There are major issues with bringing Keynes into this debate: First, the economy is heating up to the point that there is talk of the federal reserve raising interest rates very soon. Keynesians advocate stimulus when the economy is poor, not when it's picking up steam. Second, neither fiscal policy nor monetary policy (the two "levers" of Keynesianism) directly targets minimum wage jobs. Fiscal policy typically bails out Wall street and failing U.S. businesses while monetary policy tends to help the rich at the expense of the poor. Third, Keynesian economics itself is flawed. It was refuted by Jean-Baptiste Say in 1803 before Keynes was even born. Recessions are not caused by demand shocks, they are caused by supply shocks: "A man who applies his labour to the investing of objects with value by the creation of utility of some sort, can not expect such a value to be appreciated and paid for, unless where other men have the means of purchasing it. Now, of what do these means consist? Of other values of other products, likewise the fruits of industry, capital, and land. Which leads us to a conclusion that may at first sight appear paradoxical, namely, that it is production which opens a demand for products." "Should a tradesman say, "I do not want other products for my woollens, I want money," there could be little difficulty in convincing him that his customers could not pay him in money, without having first procured it by the sale of some other commodities of their own" http://www.econlib.org... Fiscal policy simply transfers wealth from one person to another, giving person X the ability to spend the production of person Y. Monetary policy creates money out of thin air, allowing some lucky individuals to spend the general increase in productivity of everyone else. Even if a MW increase somehow magically did increase spending, and J.B. Say was wrong while Keynes was right, where would the additional money come from to pay for the MW increase? Raising the MW only shifts money around, it does not create wealth. Of those workers who get paid more after the MW is raised, some may see reduced benefits or work hours. Other workers will lose their jobs either because they are replaced by machines or the business is forced to close, while still others simply will not be hired due to positions that would have been created without the MW increase. In other cases, the business owner will eat the cost and his/her spending will decrease. And lastly, how does increasing government revenue help the economy? If it does, then shouldn't we just raise all tax rates to 100% and have government provide for us all? Note: I concede that the MW increase will have zero affect on inflation. Inflation is caused by increasing the supply of money (Federal Reserve) faster than increases in productivity. It has nothing to do with the MW.


Question: Does Reducing the Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Lead to Job Creation?

Ron Paul's economic strategies are not as effective as Barack Obama's policies for job creation and small business growth.

I disagree with your interpretations of Keynesian and Austrian economics. Here are simplified definitions:

Austrian School Economics: Advocates for minimal government involvement in economic affairs, supporting property rights, free markets, national defense, and law enforcement.

Keynesian Economics: Promotes government intervention to stabilize economic cycles through spending, tax breaks, and cuts to prevent inflation.

Contention 1: Obama supports small business and job creation
Obama ordered a review of federal regulations to ease the burden on small businesses. He passed tax cuts for small businesses to stimulate job creation and implemented the Affordable Care Act, which provides health insurance for small business employees without increasing costs. The Act also offers tax credits for health insurance purchases. [1][2]

Contention 2: Obama rescued the auto industry
Obama backed the controversial auto bailouts, saving over 1.4 million jobs and averting a $97 billion loss in personal income in 2009 and 2010. The industry is now creating jobs, avoiding a depression, and the companies have paid back most of their debts, becoming more competitive. [3][4]

Contention 3: Economic stimulus prevented a depression
The stimulus saved 224,000 jobs in 2010, increasing GDP by 1.7-4.5%, creating 1.4-3.3 million jobs, and lowering unemployment by 0.7-3.8 percentage points. Without the stimulus, the recession would have lasted longer, potentially turning into a depression. [5][6]

Contention 4: Wall Street reform was necessary
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act promotes long-term growth, increases accountability, and regulates Wall Street for the economy's benefit. It ends bailouts, separates proprietary trading from banking, and establishes a Consumer Protection Agency to prevent predatory lending. [7]

Contention 5: Obama's policies boosted the economy
The USA avoided a depression, and renewable energy production surged, increasing lithium car battery production from 2% to 40%. Renewable energy sources now provide 14% of total energy, creating 250,000-850,000 green jobs since Obama took office. Job growth, while not robust, is better than under the Bush Administration. [8][9][10][11]

Contention 6: American Jobs

To recap Pro's arguments, there seems to be three premises that Pro argues support the resolution:P1: Income inequality is caused by the MIDP2: MID does not create an incentive for home ownershipP3: MID is one of the largest federal tax expendituresP1: Income inequality is caused by the MIDPro fails to show how MID causes inequality. Sure, according to her sources there is inequality but that hardly makes MID the sole or even proximate cause. There may be a correlation but definitely not enough proof that it is the cause. Pro also states, "the average value of the home mortgage interest deduction increases greatly with income." Of course, it does; someone who makes more will spend more and some of the spending is offset by tax deductions. Other tax deductions such as charitable giving are likewise progressive in that higher income returns get more back [5]. Pro misses the obvious here – that the deductions are larger for high-income individuals because their houses are worth more. Furthermore, the issue of inequality itself is hardly far from settled. Mr Gordon, from the National Bureau of Economic Research, states that improved use of income datasets "shows that there was no increase of inequality after 1993 in the bottom 99 percent of the population…" So, for almost a decade there has been no rise in inequality [3]. In fact, another paper from economists at the University of Chicago, Christian Broda and John Romalis, shows that real inequality may have actually fallen between 1994 and 2005 [4].Now, if inequality has not increased and might have actually fallen while MID has been in place for all those years (1993-2005 specifically), then there would have to be another cause for inequality and most likely multiple causes. P2: MID does not create an incentive for home ownership Pro makes the mistake of thinking that if homeownership rates remain level, then that is a good reason to eliminate MID. While the data seems to support this premise, the premise fails to support the conclusion.In addition, the percentage of itemizers would barely budge if the MID was eliminated. For example, medical expenses, charitable contributions, business expenses, educational expenses, disaster losses are all deductible [1]. People making $75,000 or more would still itemize as they tend to have more items that are deductible than those making less than $75,000. While it may be true that only 23% of those making less than $40,000 itemize they are less likely to own a house [2]. And as that would be a major source of deductions for those making less than the median income and owning a home, the loss of MID would impact them the greatest. Moreover, for low-income individuals that do get the MID, it would likely very much be an incentive for them to own a home. Let us assume that there is no incentive at all currently, eliminating the MID would hardly create incentive to buy in and of itself. How does eliminating a deduction that's been in place for 100 years make people want to go out and buy a home?P3: MID is one of the largest federal tax expendituresThis is an accounting trick. Tax deductions are not expenditures of the Federal government. That would be the along the lines of a business treating sales that were not made as expenditures. In order to be an expenditure, the money would have to actually come from the government's coffers. And before you say that the MID caused spending in other areas which has the same effect, thus making it an expenditure, let me say that there is no direct correlation to any budget item so proving it's cost would be merely guesswork. Both spending and revenue need to be looked at, if the Federal Debt is ever to be controlled, I just do not think it should be on the backs of homeowners.Conclusion:The only point Pro makes that goes to the elimination of the MID is that it is a large "expenditure" for the federal government. Interestingly, this is the point she spends the least amount of time on. But if I look at it as an expenditure (which I don't), there are many large expenditures (real ones) in the government that shouldn't be phased out such as Social Security and Defense spending. Just because an expense is large does not mean it should be eliminated. To the other two points raised, MID causing inequality and the MID not incentivizing home ownership, even if accepted as true are not good reasons to eliminate or even phase out the MID.I'd like to thank my opponent for this insightful debate and eagerly await their response.Sources:[1] http://www.irs.gov...[2] http://www.census.gov...[3] http://www.nber.org...[4] http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu...[5] http://www.irs.gov...

Thanks for the response. I (Codename_x, Con) will first begin with a few rebuttals for Con's case, then give some of my own arguments.Rebuttal A : "Burden of Prove"Con has stated that I have not upheld the burden of proof. Con has also stated that the resolution is "How does minimum wage impact poverty." Quite obviously, con has not read my resolution, it being, "If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease." The impact of minimum wage on poverty is not the same as the impact of minimum wage on government spending. I have supported the burden of proof.As a result, many of Con's arguments do not help to disprove the resolution, "If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease," but instead support Con's, "How does Minimum Wage impact poverty."Rebuttal B: "Demographics of Minimum Wage""Only 2% of workers in the US is on Minimum Wage." ~ConJust five states in the United States do not have their own minimum wage; these states being Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee (1). These states only have to comply with the federal minimum wage, the remaining 45 states, have their own minimum wage, all higher than the federal one (2). So, only workers from these five states are able to receive federal minimum wage, without it being unlawful. This source only counts people earning exactly minimum wage, it does not count people earning only a few cents above it. These people earning only a few cents above minimum wage would still be impacted with a realalistic minimum wage change (3).Most of Con's argument (Demographics of Minimum Wage) is explaining how many minimum wage earners are not below the "poverty line". However, this fails to disprove the resolution, as none of this explains how minimum wage would not decrease USFG spending.Rebuttal C: "Effects of Minimum Wage""However, a number of studies claim they increase disemployment, leading to more unemployment costs, welfare, and food stamps." ~ConThere have been 19 minimum wage amendments since 1961 (4). Each of these dates I will give you, the minimum wage was increased: in 1964, 1965, 1967, 1976, 1996, and 1997 unemployment went down the year after the minimum wage increase. In 1961, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1975, 1976, 1981, 1991, 1996, 1997, and 2009, unemployment decreased over a period of 4 years (4)(5). So in 11 out of the 19 amendments to increase minimum wage, there was actually an employment increase, further decreasing the amount of money spent on welfare and foodstamps. Increased minimum wage does not decrease employment.Rebuttal D: "Less USFG Income = More Debt"Raising the minimum wage would in fact not hurt the productivity of companies. About 66% of low-wage earners are employed by large corporations (9). The National Employment Law Project produced a paper that proved, there would be no significant decline in the productivity, or hiring of companies employing low-wage workers if the minimum wage was to be increased (9). "Increasing the US Debt by just $50 bn a year" ~ConThis is not sourced, and there is no data to back up this claim. The National Employment Law Project's, Big Businesses, Corporate Profits, and the Minimum Wage disproves this theory. Argument A: Social Security, Unemployment & Labor *Copy and pasted from first argument:There is $36,614,800,000 of US government money going to WORKING people who receive food stamps, and $73,864,000,000 of USFG money goes to WORKING welfare recipients. So raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" could save the USFG up to $110 billion!Different welfare programs for Walmart workers alone costed the USFG an estimated $6 billion (12)! The average income of a sales Associate working at Walmart is $8.81, so these workers would be affected by a minimum wage change (15). Walmart employs about 1.4 million people in the US, about 1.15% of all of America's workers (13) (14). Overall, the United States would save money if the minimum wage was to be increased.Thank you readers for reading. I would also like to wish anyone reading this a happy New Years (if you are not reading this before New Years that is).Con, I await your response. Sources:(1) http://tinyurl.com... (2) http://tinyurl.com... (3) http://tinyurl.com... (4) http://tinyurl.com... (5) http://tinyurl.com... (6) http://tinyurl.com... (7) http://tinyurl.com... (8) http://tinyurl.com... (9) http://tinyurl.com... (10) http://tinyurl.com... (11) http://tinyurl.com... (12) http://tinyurl.com... (13) http://tinyurl.com... (14) http://tinyurl.com... (15) http://tinyurl.com...

I would like to start this round by stating my opponent's previous argument is completely flawed. My opponent blamed President Ronald Reagan for bad economics by telling only half of the story and using oversimplified facts to support his argument. I would like to set the record straight by stating that the Ronald Reagan administration inherited the worst American economy in the 20th Century since the Great Depression from the Carter administration. As my opponent pointed out the income tax rate for the wealthy during this time period was approximately 70%. If that's not a high tax rate my friends then I don't know what is. Regardless of who you are and how much wealth you have you shouldn't be punished or held down by the government with high tax rates. The Democrats would like you to believe that cutting taxes only benefits the wealthy and creates a massive inequality problem. That is false. Cutting taxes eases the strain placed on businesses and benefits everyone. I am aware that she was not an American politician however she makes this point clear that liberals do not see that tax cuts benefits everyone not just the wealthy in the following you tube video: http://www.youtube.com... I would like to further point out that unemployment rates under the Carter administration hovered around 7.5% and increased to nearly 10.5% in the first few months of the Reagan administration due to the final effects being felt by Carter economics. Reagan was able to shift the economy back in gear and the unemployment rate fell to 5.4% when he left the white house. According to USA today, "the rest of Reagan's presidency was characterized by tremendous economic success. Inflation declined to 3.71 percent in 1983 and averaged 4.4 percent for the eight-year period. GDP growth turned positive and averaged about 3.8 percent per year. Much of this success was attributed to Reagan's position on taxes and the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982." It is clear that Ronald Reagan did the complete opposite of what my opponent claims and achieved substantial success for the economy. Under the current Democratic president our economy is growing at 1.4%, half the rate it was when Reagan took office. Further statistics show that barely half of college graduates can't find work today. In the country that is supposed to be the "land of opportunity" our own college graduates can't find work? That, to me, is disgusting. History has mostly shown, with a few minor exceptions, that the majority of Republican administrations and governments have handled the economy better than democrats. They spend more conservatively and ensure that there is always economic growth and opportunity for all.

I do not advocate for raising taxes for the purpose of giving government more money to spend. As we all know the US faces a massive annual deficit of 1.5 trillion and a national debt of over 14 trillion. "I understand pro's point here, the problem is this. We don't know what the extra money, raised by the tax increase, will be used for. To my knowledge, there is no agreement that the extra money will be applied to the debt. We would like to think that it would go toward the debt, but we just don't know for sure because no one has said where it will be used. If we raise the tax rate, on the top 2%, that will bring in about 70 billion a year. That's nothing to sneeze at, but by the same token, it won't make a dent in the overall debt, and we'll still be running that 1.5 trillion dollar per year budget deficit. The other problem is that the group effected by the cuts, is the group that creates jobs. Taking that money from them will just take it out of the economy. It won't be there for them to invest, and when investment in companies goes down, unemployment goes up, or at best, job creation slows. So, in the end, it's best to let them keep their money, and put it back in to the economy. That's where it is doing the most good. "However, the issues we face are not going to simply wait till we decide to have faith in our leaders. I also refute the general premise that “we know” our leaders will not act responsibly. " I understand what you're saying here, but we're not going to change the culture in Washington, by increasing taxes. That 70 billion isn't going to change anything. Throwing more money at a problem, isn't always the answer, if it were we'd have the best education system in the world. If anything that just enables the problem. They're like addicts, and the more we give them the more they'll use. With all the problems that we've had, they still can't get together and come up with ways to reduce the annual budget deficit. Until we get that annual budget tamed, nothing is going to get significantly better. The federal government is just giving money away. In the 2011 budget, there is almost 700 billion dollars being given out in grant money, just given away never to be repayed, and many of those grants are regular, given out yearly. That amount doesn't even include the statutory block grants given to states. The amount of grant money given out should be decreasing, because of our problems, but it's not, it's up from 2010. This is an example of what I mean about wanting to see some signs of sanity, with the budget, and that's enough to show me that our leaders are not going to act responsibly. After the 2010 election, you would think they would be inspired to do something significant, but apparently they didn't get the message. They're still bickering. The only thing significant being discussed right now is raising the debt ceiling even higher. That doesn't sound responsible to me. Pro's Rebuttals1. I'm not trying to argue that the lower classes won't be affected. As I said earlier, responsibility in other areas will make the effect on the lower classes "more palatable". I wasn't arguing for those particular cuts, just trying to give an example of how creativity can raise significant money. With such a high percentage of our money going to programs that effect the lower and middle classes, it's not surprising that those are the classes that are going to be impacted. As it relates to raising taxes on the top 2%, though, that amount is not going help them significantly, and could end up hurting them, in the long run. If those tax increases, on the wealthy, slow job growth, or raise unemployment, the lower classes are going to be impacted far more significantly. Another issue to look at is charitable contributions that help the lower class. The more we take away from the rich, the less they're going to give voluntarily. The risks far outweigh the benefit, because of that, I think raising taxes on that group, right now, is a bad idea.2. Do we have reason to believe that "taxing the job creators", has a POSITIVE impact on employment rates? ? Many would find that surprising. I'm sorry that my opponent finds that offensive, but the simple fact is that rich people create jobs. The top 2%, those affected by the increase in question, are those making 250,000 or more. I won't argue with SOME, but below that figure, there isn't a whole lot of job creation going on. I agree that there are many people who can't start a business because of capital, but taking the 70 billion, that we're talking about, out of the economy isn't going to help that situation, at all. "Yes I understand that business owners investments are continual and yes taking money out of their hands will affect their ability to start new ones. I do understand that these tax increases would in fact hurt our overall economic situation, but anytime you take money out of the economy that will be the end result weather by increasing taxes or cutting spending. " Here pro agrees that increasing taxes on the rich will have a negative effect on jobs, and will hurt our overall economy. If that's the case, then why would we want to go ahead and raise those taxes? ?3. It makes sense that those paying the most taxes, have the most wealth, I don't believe that fact to be unfair. "The issue with this disparity is that contrary to a belief shared by many, it is by no means proportional to how hard an individual works. How can one justify a CEO earning nearly $20 million while those at the bottom of their company earn $10 hr? Can a person truly be worth that much? "We're way off topic here, but as long as I have space, I don't mind. I agree with the sentiment here, it doesn't seem fair, but bottom line is that in capitalism, it's not about how hard the people work, it's about what the market says they're worth. Most any of us can step in and do the $10/hr jobs, as they don't usually require special skills. But how many of us qualify for, and can step in and successfully be a CEO? ? Is he/she really worth that much? ? It depends on supply and demand. If there is demand in a highly specialized position, those that qualify are going to be paid more, it's that simple. Those people have worked to gain the qualifications necessary for that position, so shouldn't they be rewarded for it? ? I don't believe that we should say that a person can only make so much money, and the rest has to go to the government for redistribution to the rest of the population. The same principle applies to athletes. Very few people can hit or throw a 95 mph pitch, if there's a demand for fans to see ball games, those guys are going to make big bucks. I disagree that they do nothing to make the major leagues what it is. They are the history makers, they are the ones who bring fans to the stadiums, it's their names that are on the jerseys. Yes, many came before them, that built the history, but they are the one's continuing it for future generations. You also have to look at the fact that their ability to play, and continue to earn, could end at any minute, with an injury. ". .. but it is the government’s responsibility to do what is best for the greater good. " My opponent and I both agree that this tax increase will have a negative effect on jobs, and hurt the overall economy, so is that what's best for the greater good? ? I don't believe it is, in fact, if what we agree on is true, then the tax increase will be detrimental to the greater good. Pro talks about protecting the middle class but I would argue that protecting jobs is the best thing for the middle class. Raising taxes only puts jobs at risk, and the benefit is not great enough to justify that risk. Pro is asking for an alternative solution, but with all due respect, that's not the debate. My only responsibility here, is to show why we should extend all the Bush tax cuts. I would ask that voters vote within the scope of the debate. I look forward to the next round.

Sorry, but unless I'm mistaken, round two is supposed to be used for questioning the opponent's case. It seems as though you have no questions for me, but in response to your "general refutations," The point of an online debate is to practice writing speeches. Your refutations seem to be entirely plagiarized from the source you conveniently left me. Therefore all these arguments are null. You also claim that my sources, since they are "organizations" and yours seem to be an exact copy of a government resource, my arguments are invalid. That isn't the case, because these "organizations," such as the Board of Economic Advisors, are federal organizations run by the government. In response to your short case: "subpoint a Spending cuts should be prioritized because tax increases would put to much pressure on the poor according to new York times these tax increases on the whole population would make the average American pay 3 and half thousand more in there taxes. suppoint b Spending cuts will provide a budget for the united states vs tax increases all it does is give more money to the united states government more money to spend that is unneccesarysly helpful." For Subpoint A: I'm not talking about the average american; in my case I specifically mentioned in a proposal that the US government would rase the tax rate to 33.3% for the top 1% of Americans. However if that's the scenario, the pressure won't be on the poor because more money is going into public sector growth, where jobs on infrastructure, education, and health can be opened. Why would there be more pressure on the poor? For Subpoint B: Can you name any specific programs that can be cut? -How much money annually would cutting these programs save? Wouldn't cutting spending mean less money going into public sector growth? That would mean less jobs available.

I am sure you will do fine. Thank you for assuming the best of me, I did not realize that when i put the links into the box, they would be shortened. Here are all the links TYPED OUT, to avoid any errors. They are listed in the order I presented them in the first round. www. johntfloyd. com/comments/march11/Federal-Safety-Valve. htm justice. gov/oig/reports/BOP/a0416/intro. htm motherjones. com/mojo/2011/04/no-budget-cuts-federal-prisons dallascounty. org/department/cjab/media/CJABExecCommMinutes5-16-11. pdf fd. org/pdf_lib/Determiningthelikelihoodofsuccess. pdf dcj. state. co. us/ors/pdf/docs/ww08_022808. pdf Now, with that out of the way, I will move on to the arguments. To clarify, this plan would include 2 parts - the first would consist of alternative sentencing like job training and drug rehab to safety valve offenders, because safety valve offenders must be low-level, non-violent, first time offenders, who do not deserve the harsh prison sentence they are currently receiving. . The second part is the intensive supervision which ensures that they complete said alternative sentencing programs. My opponent's 1st argument, was based on the idea that this plan would simply enhance current supervised release options. This is false. As mandate 1 clearly states "Any offender who meets the mandatory minimum safety valve requirements will be placed in an alternative sentence tailored to his crime, with special emphasis placed on drug treatment and job training. " This means that offenders who would otherwise receive prison, receive alternative sentencing, which is ensured through intensive supervision, both of which have shown extremely successful in reducing crime and costs. Therefore savings will materialize. My opponents next argument was that our savings will not come about, due to less people coming through our plan than expected. I would like to point out several factors, any one of which would show this argument to be fallacious and therefore establish that this plan's savings will come about. 1. Outdated. My opponents information on convicts said 70,000 people in 03-04. My source says 200,000 people in 2012. - bop. gov/news/quick. jsp - This means that my numbers are true, and we really will save close to $1 billion. 2. Less is more. Even if this plan would save less than originally expected, you should still vote PRO because it saves more money than CON. Next, CON argued that rearrest does not mean they committed any crimes. My response is that no federal convict has been shown innocent. All 200,000 are guilty. That is why they are in FEDERAL prison. CON also argued that even if these criminals committed a crime that it doesn't prove they learned it in prison, this is correct. So I have provided a second piece corroborating the position that prison increases recidivism, and is hence a problem for low-level, non-violent, first time offenders. - Paul Gendreau and Claire Goggin, (Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, University of New Brunswick), and Francis T. Cullen, (Department of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati) " The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism," 1999 prisonpolicy. org/scans/e199912. htm In the case of the incarceration vs. community comparison, the data showed a 7% increase in recidivism (49% vs. 42%)16 or a f = .07, for those offenders who were imprisoned. CON continued to argue why my first number did not prove prison increased recidivism, however this new evidence clearly states it for all to see. It shows how prison is a problem. I would like to point out something my opponent said that is very important: while talking about the causes of recidivism, my opponent painted a nasty picture of horrible financial conditions that drive these people to do things that land them back in prison. And I completely agree, in fact, I believe my opponent left out the part about how most drug traffickers (the vast majority of those who fall through the safety valve) make much less than minimum wage, and would love to get a minimum wage job. However, due to the fact that the safety valve, which was in fact meant to give low level offenders a second chance, puts these people in prison, where we throw the murderers and rapists. This plan proposes to give them a REAL second chance. By giving them job training, this plan would actually help these people's positions in life, and hence decrease recidivism further than prison. Thank you CON for bringing up this important point. In his last 2 sentences of his second to last paragraph CON asserts that education and supervision will not reduce recidivism, and that the best thing to do would be to offer unfair tax credits to employers who hire ex-cons, which could be anyone from a terrorist to a murderer to a rapists to a drug kingpin. My response to both these is 2 fold: 1. No support. My opponent provided no support for his position. 2. Counter support provided. I have already provided numerous pieces of un-refuted evidence about the success of this plan in reducing recidivism. CON then proceeded to assert that my study from Dallas is "incomplete and prejudicial". In response to both of these points I say that CON has: missed the point. The point was that the Dallas system of intensive supervision keeps offenders from leaving the program or committing crimes during the program. It does nothing to fix the recidivism rate. The purpose of this plan is to have two parts, one part to reduce recidivism and fix the problem, and a second part to ensure that offenders comply with the first part. I would like to point out how CON has completely dropped the success of the first part so far; and has not argued that the second part has failed at what it was INTENDED TO DO. (keep offenders in the program, NOT reduce recidivism. ) Lastly, CON argued that there was another, better way to be cost effective - decriminalize drugs. And as much as I would like to argue against his point, it has absolutly no relavence to this debate round, as you are left with 2 options at the end of the debate round - 1 vote PRO and recieve the above stated benefits which means that you achieve cost effectiveness, and not decriminalize drugs; or 2 vote CON keep the status quo, achieve all of the above stated harms, not achieve cost effectiveness and not decriminalize drugs. Because you don't decriminalize drugs either way, it does not enter into the debate round and there is no reason for you to vote CON, and every reason for you to vote PRO. As I still have space, I will provide some more evidence supporting this plan as a good idea:

REBUTTING MY OPPONENT My opponent's entire argument hinges on the idea that technology is replacing jobs and thus causing very few workers who would be able to rebel. Interestingly enough, my opponent ignored an article that was linked to in the article they used as a source. In fact, my opponent ignored all available evidence that suggests the contrary of what my opponent is arguing for, which is a cherry-picking fallacy[1]. In the article that my opponent chose to ignore, it points out that the idea that technology gets rid of jobs is malarchy. It shows a graph of the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom, and shows when new technologies came out. There is no correlation between the unemployment rate and the technologies coming out over the past several decades,[2] which if technology was causing unemployment, there would be correlation. In addition, they point out that employers don't have an interest in only staying small, they always want to grow their business. While robots can replace some jobs, they can't replace all jobs and some people would still be needed. Thus, the company would expand because productivity is up from having more robots, and that then creates more jobs. [2] The article that my opponent linked to has many issues with it because it doesn't establish causation and ignores evidence to the contrary, which is again a cherry-picking fallacy, but this time on the part of the writers of that article. First, it makes a quick assumption that because the unemployment rate is higher than it should be right now, that it's because of technology. However, it provides no direct causation, and ignores the fact that there can be other reasons why the unemployment rate is staying higher than it should be. Then, it ignores the fact that technology creates new jobs, such as when it claimed that "some 47% of present jobs in the US could be computerized in the next 10 to 20 years, according to an Oxford University study published in 2013." They ignore the jobs that would be created by computerization, which could be equal to or greater than the jobs lost by computerization. In addition my opponent claimed that the industrial revolution resulted in the loss of jobs, but this is also a deceptive claim. While it is true that certain jobs were no longer needed and those jobs were lost, other careers went up in demand. In fact in a study by economists at the consultancy Deloitte, they examined the number of jobs that have been lost since 140 years ago due to technology, and the jobs created by technology. The jobs created by technology outnumbered the jobs lost by technology. [3] All technology does is change which jobs people do, it doesn't get rid of the total number of available jobs. It gets rid of the undesirable jobs and produces more desirable jobs. While I could have argued that technology only creates jobs and presented only evidence of that, that would also have been fallacious. The truth is a combination of the two: it destroys some jobs, and creates other jobs. It just so happens that it creates other jobs at a higher rate than it destroys the old jobs, however. Next, my opponent argued that business owners would pay the few workers out there very well. But what evidence is there to suggest this? History shows that business owners will pay the minimum amount necessary to their workers, in order to keep as much of the profits as they can possibly keep for themselves. Again, just look at the 1800s when wages were terrible, working conditions were terrible, etc. The only reason these conditions are better is because the government set a minimum wage and many business regulations. The business owners wouldn't fix these problems, otherwise they would have done it some time in the hundreds of years we had capitalism without any government interference, but they didn't. History is not on my opponent's side. Also, if the scenario my opponent suggested is true, then the workers can't do anything about the business owner paying them so little or not providing a safe work environment, because there would be a high unemployment rate and plenty of people to replace them with who'd be desperate enough to work the lower pay and go through an unsafe work environment in order to survive to buy food. Eventually, those people may also demand a higher pay, but without the government, the business owner can then just fire them again and hire new people desperate enough to work for them. Finally, my opponent argued that the rich have no interest to create a strong state, but this is also not true. First, my opponent said "The rich have sufficient workers and technology to guard their wealth." But the workers are not reliable to guard their wealth, as workers can strike, or even overthrow the business owner. You would have to explain how technology guards wealth though, I don't see how it does. At any rate, the rich would be interested in a strong state because it's often the state that bails out the rich companies instead of letting them fail(no business owner wants to fail, so they would want a state to bail them out), why wouldn't a wealthy person be in favor of a state that won't let them fail?. It's the state that guarantees them to have private property as well and protects it. USING OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT AGAINST THEM Now, if what my opponent argued for was true, it doesn't exactly change anything. If technology was to cause a sharp increase in unemployment as my opponent implied, then there would also be a decline in business owners because they can't find people to sell their product to, since no one, or very few, would have a job earning money to buy their products. Thus, many more would go out of business. It's simple economics: if there is no one to buy your product, you go out of business. If all business owners did somehow replace all or most of the jobs with robots, then no one or very few people would be able to buy the business owner's products, and the businesses would die. Since the businesses would die, that means there's no more private ownership of the means of production, and capitalism is destroyed once more. So, even if what my opponent suggested was true(which as I pointed out it doesn't seem to be true), it would still result in the destruction of capitalism and the remnants of civilization would probably establish a non-capitalist society, one that is more worker-oriented in order to avoid that happening again. Sources: [1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com... [3] http://www.sciencealert.com...

My opponent made a number of different points. I will try to address them all here. Does the State Have a Duty to Reduce Poverty Through the Minimum Wage? This is a question of both morality and practicality. I believe that, in both cases, the answer is no. The state does not have a duty to try to reduce poverty. First, we must realize that the state enforces all of its rules violently. Since we are talking about the minimum wage, let us again recognize what the minimum wage is. The minimum wage is the State saying that workers cannot agree sell their labor below a certain point, set by the state, or they and the wage payer who agrees to pay them this wage will be thrown into jail. If they resist jail, they will eventually be shot and killed. By definition, a minimum wage is enforced violently. So, I certainly don't agree that the government has a "duty" to reduce poverty. Because, the only way the government can reduce poverty is through violence. Now, practically speaking, the minimum wage does not reduce poverty. The reason for this is that the minimum wage has the effect of raising unemployment, which increases poverty. This is a point I will get more into in later points. The Minimum Wage Increases UnemploymentIn my last argument, I used a hypothetical story to illustrate how a minimum wage would increase unemployment, by creating a surplus in labor: "So, let me offer up a hypothetical story. Let's say that a minimum price were to be set on all goods. This price could be $7.25 (which happens to be the minimum wage in America). Now, this would not affect some goods, like computers, cars, and houses, which are priced well above $7.25. However, this would affect other goods like candy, small toys, and certain foods, that are priced well below $7.25. Now, these goods would have a substantial surplus at first, as not many people would buy things that are typically priced below $7.25 for $7.25. Eventually, these goods would almost entirely dissapear from stores, as producers would not produce goods that could not sell. Now, think about this in the context of labor. If workers cannot sell their labor below a certain price, a lot of firms will not buy their labor at all. If a worker's labor is worth $2, then a firm will not buy their labor for $7.25. This means that there will be a major surplus on the labor market, as many low skilled workers will not be able to sell their labor at all. "My point here was that the minimum wage is like creating a minimum price for all goods. This would create a surplus of cheap goods, as consumers don't want to buy cheap things for $7.25, which is what the American minimum wage is. The labor market, as I explained, is just like any other market, so a minimum wage is a minimum price on labor. Therefore, it would have the same effects. That is, creating a surplus for low wage workers which would increase unemployment. This is a pretty simple and logical matter. My opponent does not really offer a response to this. He does go off about "machines" and "labor exploitation" in the third world. He does not explain how either of these things relate to the minimum wage affect on employment. My opponent's main response is his citing of an essay claiming that the minimum wage does not increase unemployment. This essay's main point is that the UK raised the minimum wage and unemployment did not increase. This is hardly enough evidence to base a conclusion on. The economy is affected by numerous complex factors, the minimum wage is only one of these factors. This essay does not offer much of support for its conclusion in the first place. One point it makes is that firms could afford to pay their workers more. This is an irrelevant point. Most workers could also afford to work for less, but they don't. The wage is what the worker agrees to sell his or her labor to the firm for. That is all. Now, if a worker is working for $7 an hour, and the minimum wage is raised to $7.25 an hour, it is likely that this work will simply see a slight pay raise. However, a worker working for $3 an hour would probably get laid off. Furthermore, even slight increases in the minimum wage lead to less hiring by firms. Economics is all about the "margin". A 0.10$ increase in the minimum wage won't increase unemployment much in the short term, but it will lead to slightly less hirings in the long run. However, a $2 increase in the minimum wage would have a noticable short term impact and a fairly severe long term impact on employment. ConclusionI thank my opponent for this debate. I would also note that the fact that I have not used any sources does not give my opponent the victory in sources. I have used logic over empirics in this debate, as I feel that logic alone can show how bad a policy the minimum wage is. Therefore, no sources have been necessary. My opponent has responded to a number of my points by simply citing studies. I ask that, in the final round, my opponent also looks at the logical arguments of this question. I also believe that I have won this debate. I have shown that the minimum wage does not increase standard of living or reduce poverty, as it actually does the opposite by increasing unemployment. To add to that, I have also shown that the minimum wage increases unemployment. I have shown that the state does not have a moral obligation to reduce poverty through the minimum wage. Part of this is because the minimum wage actually increases poverty, but also because the minimum wage is enforced violently, by definition. Saying that the state has a moral duty to reduce poverty through the minimum wage is like saying that the state has a moral duty to violently enforce a policy that actually ends up increasing poverty. Finally, my opponent ddid forfeit a round. Unless he had a good reason for this, this should give me conduct. The resolution has been negated, as I have shown how harmful the minimum wage is.

I'll take one of my opponent's examples and look at it individually, but the rest can be compared to reality to show that they are fake. 1) Cash 4 Clunkers. This program did not create "60,000 jobs" it created "40,200" jobs, and nearly all of these were TEMPORARY. That's because this created only a temporary boost in demand. When C4C ended, the demand left with it, and all the jobs that were needed for that temporary demand also left. That is why, during the 4 months of C4C, the US still lost 988,000 jobs. Voters should also see from the report that C4C resulted in the purshace of 394,000 cars, 210,000 of them were not made in the USA. So this "wonderful" project did more for foriegn workers than our own. http://www.cargroup.org... http://data.bls.gov... 2) all the rest. My opponent says that Obama the Great has created 7.36 million jobs and has saved $4.3 trillion dollars. Rather than digging through this political wet dream, lets just look at the facts. From January 2009 until January 2011, 3,225,000 jobs were LOST, not created. And from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011, he increased the national debt by $3.5 trillion. Simple comparison. Bush from Dec 2002 until Dec 2006, we say 6,708,000 CREATED jobs, and only $2.27 trillion added to the national debt. So when it comes to the economy, Bush created jobs, Obama the Great destroyed jobs. When it comes to national debt, Obama the Great increased the debt 50% more in half the time. http://data.bls.gov... http://www.treasurydirect.gov... Now, if we want to go into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama the Great took us into a war in Libya and is continuing the war in Afghanistan, so you can't complain about one without complaining about the other. Sure, my opponent can point to a number of blogs that make junk up, but the numbers are crystal freaking clear. Obama the Great has done NOTHING good with the country and has been the WORST president since FDR.

I am going to refute your refutes now. 3. Increased revenue American citizens will all take home more money. Thus they have more to spend. Actually, if all Americans spent the same with FairTax as they do now, almost every person of every socio-economic class would pay less in taxes by the end of his or her life. Yet, the government still makes more money because of the lack of loopholes. 4. Lowers unemployment I understand that your research into FairTax is not as extensive as mine and your knowledge on taxes may not be complete, as with most Americans. Yes, I know that taxes do not go to the businesses. Currently, businesses have to pay taxes when they get the products that they are going to sell to make a profit. With FairTax, no taxes would be paid on any good until the final consumer gets this product. With this, businesses would save money from not paying these taxes and it could go towards hiring people. 5. Deflation Again, with FairTax, businesses will not have to pay taxes when they receive the goods from the vendor as they do now. Thus, the products would be cheaper. 6. People choose how much taxes to pay The purpose of this point is to show that people would not be penalized for working hard. They could pay a lot or a little. Still, they would take home more money to spend. For example, a person who makes 60,000 dollars a year takes home only 45,000. With FairTax, they take home 60,000 dollars. People will not cut back because they have more money to spend. Now I will refute your claims. 1. The system will drive spending into the ground. People will not just take home a little more money, they will be taking home significantly larger amounts, as shown above. While, I grant you, the receipt may have a larger total number, their paychecks will have a much larger total number. 2. Who would pay for those checks? Easy, the people who get the checks pay for those checks. The equation is... poverty level spending for size of said household in a year X the sales tax rate / the twelve months...this is how much a family will get on a check in a month. The reasoning behind this is poverty level families spend money only on the basic necessities which these checks would cover. Now you have background. When Bob goes to the store and buys a tomato, the cost of the tomato is multiplied by the sales tax rate and that number is added to the cost of the tomato. This is a basic necessity, food, but it would still be taxed. The check simply ensures that the cost of the taxes on this necessity is cancelled out. The reason this system has these checks instead of not taxing the food and water is because the government can limit the amount of tax free food. I hope you can follow this because this part of this tax plan is hard to explain. 3. Discourage American businesses I have disproved the reasoning of this point already. At this time, I will include additional points. 1. Out of attempt to make you happy, I will say, for the purpose of this point, Fair Tax made national revenue the same. This system will help with real-estate sales, thrift stores, used car dealerships, and pawn shops. According to FairTax, the same item can only be taxed once. Therefore, any house that is not brand new would be tax free. This boosts the number of Real-Estate agents who will pay taxes with their new found money. Thrift stores will be completely tax free thus making stores like Goodwill more profitable. These places will get more employees who will pay taxes. Used car dealerships will benefit because the cars would be tax free. This will spark the car business and will encourage selling cars to the dealerships because the dealerships would be willing to pay more because they would need more inventory. Pawn shops would be the same. Even if, after all this, the national revenue did not change, the quality of life in the US would improve because more people would have money because they would have more jobs. 2. No loopholes I don't need to explain this any further. 3. Encourage hard work People would no longer be penalized due to the flawed tax bracket system for working harder. And these people would spend more. If, after all of this, you still find fault, please post what system America should go by for taxation(it bothers me when people shoot down one idea but does not provide an idea of his or her own). Go to fairtax.org for answers to any questions you may have about FairTax.