Question: Should Social Security Be Transformed into Private Accounts?

Privatizing Social Security with a guaranteed minimum is a superior alternative to the existing system. Privatizing Social Security with assured benefits is preferable to the current setup. Under this proposal, only government-approved, relatively secure investments would be permitted. This is an improvement over the current system because, with higher investment returns, individuals would receive a substantially larger retirement income. The potential downside, the risk of market failure, would still be an issue regardless of whether private investment is allowed. Even under the current system, if the economy were to collapse, the government would still be responsible for a certain level of benefits. An additional advantage is that the government would no longer be able to borrow against Social Security funds, thereby necessitating more honest fiscal practices, such as raising taxes or controlling spending, instead of masking deficits by using people’s retirement savings.

socialism will hurt the U.S. economy. Forcing money from the working to give to the non-working will hurt the U.S. economy.

Before I begin, I would like to apologize for my FF. I could not find the time to respond. My opponent agreed to FF his next round in order to allow me more time to respond. Conduct should go to Pro."I do not see how a high school diploma is anyhow relevant. I have a high school diploma but there are countless of better-suited individuals that have dropped out of high school that could become security providers."I was attempting to show the higher standards police officers are held to over security guards."A certificate showing that you know how to Spark Note a book and do your homework 15 minutes before class has nothing to do with one's capacity to protect people."A high school graduate obviously has a better work ethic, and a better attitude than a high-school dropout - things that would be preferable for a person to have that is responsible for protecting people. And if earning a diploma is as easy as using SparkNotes, then there wouldn't be 7000 high school kids dropping out every day (http://www.all4ed.org...)"Maybe police officers are subjected to psychological tests now and then, so what? Police brutality is a daily thing, even in the United States, where pregnant women can be tased and old men beaten to death with little or no consequence on guilty officers. "Unsubstantiated claim"On the other hand, private security officers are automatically taught to be more respectful, more helpful, more trustworthy, and much nicer to people in general" Unsubstantiated claim"Why? Because of the same profit-seeking interest that you oppose. Mall and shop owners have an interest in bringing in more clients, which means they have to provide a safe and relaxing environment."Protection should not rely on profit! Let's say a traveler was just wanting to pass through a piece of land. Would the owner require a payment for protection to be provided to this traveler? How much would this fee be? Well, I guess it would just be whatever the owner wanted it to be. And if the traveler refuses to pay, and then gets robbed or harmed in some way, what happens then? The so-called "police" will just stand there and watch?If all land becomes privately-owned by different owners, the only thing that would motivate them to provide any protection at all for the people on their land is PROFIT. And this would NOT be a good thing, because without any gain for the owners, the protection would cease to exist. "Private road and land owners could offer the exact same protection with the same level of effectiveness and efficiency."Maybe, but this "protection" would not exist across the board, it will only exist when driven by profit."After all, where do most crimes happen? In the privately-secured stores or in public streets? In the streets, and I doubt this is just a coincidence."Unsubstantiated claimMy opponent then goes on explaining how his scenario of a stateless society is different from feudalism. I would just like to say that I was not trying to draw a strict comparison between my opponent's scenario and feudalism. I only compared the two because the structure of the two seemed similar (with the privately owned land and all). Once you delve into feudalism, then yes, it is quite different from my opponent's idea. So, I will continue to refute my opponent's points he made about the stateless society. I will not attempt to argue that his scenario and feudalism are still the same, for that was not my original intention for the comparison."In a free society, people would either own the land they live on or rent it from an actual owner. Obviously, since you would have the choice to pick which owner you'd like to rent your land from, most people will look for someone who does not try to control every aspect of their lives. I mean if you had the choice, would you look for a rent money-seeking owner or a freak that forcefully takes away 3/4's of everything you earn every day?"Owners would have to keep their prices competitive with one another. But if prices keep rising and rising, what's going to stop the owners? how is that fair to the citizens?"In a free society, such restrictions would not exist, allowing a wider marketplace of land to be established with competitive owners deciding to improve their properties and attract clients as if they were entrepreneurs."Yes the land-owners would have COMPLETE control. They can do whatever they want, whenever they want. How is this good again?The next section of my opponent's argument is pointing out how a feudal-like society would not rise. I did not mean to say a feudal society would arise. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion by that."To begin with, why would the people in a legal conflict want to hire a judge they can't afford? The market adjusts itself to all the demands of society. Unreachable, over expensive judges would be a luxury service, not a general one."So..... there would have to be judges that offer their services for free? Because surely some people would not be able to afford a judge period, just as some people cannot afford a lawyer today. But now, the government will provide a lawyer for you. Who will provide the judge in your scenario, and why?"Now, is it fair or just to allow judges to rule without an universal standard? Not considering the fact that this system is the one already in use in the United States without problems, I would like to ask you a similar question. Is it fair to allow a few central planners, union bureaucrats, and powerful technocrats to decide what competent and educated judges should do? Central planning never works, so don't expect litigation to be any different."Ok judges wouldn't be a problem. I concede this point."Another case against private litigation resolution you pointed out is corruption. You agreed that corruption already exists. The difference is that in today's monopolized system, the customer (you or I) have no choice. We have to remain with the same government judges all the time."Not true. "Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes or Misdemeanors." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Now, judges can be impeached because of this nation-wide law in the Constitution. I would also like to point out that if the whole nation would be privatized, nation-wide legislation like the Constitution would not exist. There would be a bunch of different sets of laws all over, and that would be it."If private companies were in charge of conflict resolution, wouldn't you choose the least corrupted company? In short, private companies would be less corrupted than the government monopoly of courts."How would you choose the least corrupted company, or let's say least corrupted land-owner? Would that involve one to move all of their belongings off of their property? Because what I'm getting from this is whoever's land you live on you must follow their rules. So if you end up on corrupt land, you have to move off of it. And if there's only a select few honest land-owners, everyone would flock to that land, and those land-owners surely wouldn't be able to provide land for everyone. So corruption would still exist, and since the corrupt companies are calling the shots for their employees, the corruption would not be removed.Polycentric Theory of LawIf one land allows all kinds of crime to happen, ALL criminals would most certainly flock there. That area would become an area just absolutely filled with crime. Once all the victims there are taken care of, the criminals would certainly spread to surrounding areas. So if one area allows crime to happen freely, its surrounding neighbors would certainly suffer. Criminals are like fleas - get a flea-infested animal near other animals, and the fleas just spread and multiply.Out of space. Back to Pro

I. Intro Thank you Varrack for the rebuttal. I"d also like to apologize for my constructive having issues with use of apostrophes. I"m not sure why it"s replacing apostrophes with quotation marks. I"ve encountered this issue on mobile but never on my laptop, so I"m not sure how to fix it. Hopefully it won"t continue this round. Regardless, I apologize to Varrack and the readers, since it likely causes at least some minor irritation. II. Re: Economic/Societal Impacts As briefly mentioned in my constructive, the examples used in Pro"s case are not indicative of what would occur in the United States, due to the differences between the US and each of the countries. These nations are significantly poorer than the United States. According to the CIA Factbook, the United States poverty rate is 15.1%. The nearest of the three countries Varrack mentioned was Uganda, at 19.7%. [7] This means that each of these nations have significantly more room for improvement than the United States does, so the effects will be amplified. They are all significantly more corrupt than the United States, based on Transparency International"s research. The United States is 16th in the world with a score of 75. Namibia is 53rd with a score of 51, India is 81st with a score of 40, Kenya is ranked 143 with 28 points, and Uganda is 151st with a score of 26. [8] They are also all in more unstable regions and have less developed economies. They"re still developing. Best case scenario, it"s as if you"re looking through a kaleidoscope at the effects of UBI. Worst case scenario, they aren"t comparable at all. These countries also have very limited trials. We"d have a very difficult time applying the micro tests to a country that is very different, be it in poverty rates (and what the poverty level actually is), corruption, economic development levels, or national sovereignty and security. Prefer my tests from the UK, which is much more similar to the US on every count. III. Re: Failure of Welfare Programs Cross-apply Section V. of my case. Though means-based welfare programs have "negative incentives" for earnings, they are at a much lower rate than the rates for individuals who are making more money. I discussed in my case how individuals who make below half the poverty rate (approximately $6,000) have a marginal tax rate of 14%. Individuals who make 50%-100% of the poverty rate (roughly $6,000-$12,000) have a marginal tax rate of 24%. People who make more than that faced a rate of 34%. This means that people that receive means-tested welfare are actually facing far fewer "negative incentives" than those who are making, say, $70,000 a year. To say that they are decentivized due to these marginal tax rates is ludicrous, else we would see the same issues at higher rates among those with greater incomes. We simply do not. Furthermore, an asset cap isn"t necessarily an issue. If there is no asset cap, we face the issue posed in my case: individuals who don"t need aid will receive it anyway, wasting funds. Again, a person who makes a comfortable wage may find an extra $10,000 nice, it is far from necessary. Even an individual making $30,000 (assuming no dependents) may be fine without an extra $10,000. If Pro wants to argue for a higher asset cap, there is definitely an argument to be made. However, an asset cap is not a bad idea, as it avoids allocation of resources to those who do not need it. Finally, as stated in case, the issue with considering the "poverty rate" in the United States is that it doesn"t account for in-kind reception of welfare. As an incredibly simplified example, let"s assume I make $11,000 per year and the poverty line is at $12,000. If I receive $1,001 worth of food stamps, my income is effectively $12,001 per year, above the poverty line, but I would still be counted as below the poverty line. Measuring the effectiveness of the current welfare programs by analyzing the poverty rate is absolutely pointless, because most of the welfare programs aren"t accounted for in the measure of the poverty rate. IV. Conclusion UBI is a pipe dream in the United States. Without first eradicating capitalism, it will do nothing but drive down wages and act a subsidiary to businesses. There have been no tests of UBI that can be applied to the United States which point toward a success. Each of the studies offers a myriad of issues that separate it from America. Meanwhile, the current welfare system is working, contrary to what analysis of the incomplete poverty rate would indicate. It is putting Americans well above their European counterparts. UBI is neither plausible, needed, or likely to be effective. V. Sources [7] https://www.cia.gov... [8] https://www.transparency.org...

I. Lands can benefit the collectiveThis is a matter of one sided opinion. I honestly believe that having more people in the workforce, stimulating the economy and consumption, is more beneficial to the collective at this point in time. As I said earlier, we hold millions of acres in land, IE, a lot of other land that can benefit the collective;. Tight sharecropping operations can be run pretty compact. Which is why I posted the above photo. In truth, with current interest rates on BLM controlled land, the farms can be distributed at 400-500 m2 a piece, with you average farm being about 1000-3000 acres. A well organized and structured government share farm will be efficient and beneficial to the collective.II. Land UseIt is important we set a basic ratio, for distributed land, and land held in reserve. We have established that the US has plenty of unused land it seems. I reason that a fair distribution equation would be DLm2 =(FEI - CI)/4) +200. If you couldn't figure out what the abbreviations meant, ask me in the comments. Honestly, given current demographics, and the reserved land comparative to what would need to be distributed, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose.Oh, and just to run the equation for practical application, it would look something like this. The federally established income right now is 10,000, and lets say a random person only has 8000 in total income. You would deduct 8000 from the FEI to equal 2000, which you would proceed to divide by 4, leaving you with 500 m2, which you would add 200 to, leaving you with a land plot of of exactly 700 m2. 700m2 =(10,000 - 8000)/2) + 200I tinkered with some charts for awhile, and this equation would ensure a perfect balance of distribution. It would be great to give everyone the same plot of land, but my opponent is right. That would be nearing the line, as that land is used for development at the moment. III. Operating Costs Exceed DemandI doubled up on my research for this round, and it turns out that operating a farm costs more than the average real estate bid. The USDA is trying to push for a new agriculture surplus, which is desperately needed to lower the commodity prices of food items in Europe. We are sitting on all the land we need to do this, and since people are spending no money, and the sharecropping institution is ran collectively, we can operate and run farms for nearly free. IV. Success on the homesteadMy opponent brings up a good point. You can't just drop someone on a farm and tell them to make money. It doesn't work like that. I should of been more clear. I am advocating for government leased sharecropping zones, operated by the people, under the supervision of the government. Do you see the central housing in these two screen shots? Those are known as villas, and they're usually the center of a share cropping farm. Most share croppers sleep in cabins, even in the commercial world. These are cheap, inexpensive, and can be built in two days time. Housing isn't a problem. Welfare isn't a problem. And food certainly isn't a problem.V. Distribute or LeaseMy opponent is mistaken. They can in fact go hand in hand. Leasing means you are allotting that land for a shortened period of time. Distributing means you are cutting up land for people. In this scenario, I am advocating we distribute land to be operated by citizens for a allotted period of time. Thanks for the debate Con, and sorry I didn't refute in order of your arguments.Cheers!

This is a 4 round debate. For the first round give 1 paragraph about your side. I am on the side of abolishing the Federal Reserve. It wastes tax dollars because it is a private company. The IRS is also private. This is also a scary thing because this means that a private company has control over all of the money we use, they could do anything they want with it.

Your link did work this time. I will not deny any claims in the link because it was factual, however I will say that the United States is currently in 2 wars, we have a huge army reserve, our national debt is much higher than that of Canada, and we have many more people. We also have to take into account many variables, such as illegal immigration, smoking, drinking, and air quality. I feel that we need to fix up our current socialized systems before we add any others. 1) Sketchiness: Well, if you carefully read the article, you will find this sentence, "The Democrats among us accepted an end to the tax-free treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance; instead, everyone -- not just those who currently get insurance through their employer -- would get a generous standard deduction that they would use to buy insurance -- and keep the excess if they buy a less expensive policy" (Wyden). I'm sure the government would find a balance between what saves Americans, as well as America, the most money. "A voucher system would preserve the current costly (administrative costs of all health insurance companies - is just one component) status quo. " But how would a public option or single payer be any different? "A few years ago the CEO of United Health Care retired. His retirement package was $490 million! $490 Million! $490 MILLION! I hope my point is evident. " Unfortunately, you have just laid out an exceptional argument for evolution. If we were intelligently designed, we would be way less greedy and we would be able to do the best for the company and the people, instead of what's best for the CEO. But the head of the public option or national health system would also be human, so I see no inherent benefit. 2) Second argument: "Could an employer decide to discontinue his group health plan and tell his employees to apply for a government voucher? " In the article, it says, "Most have agreed to require employers to contribute to the system and to pay workers wages equal to the amount the employer now contributes for health care. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that this framework is the only one thus far that bends the health-care cost curve down and makes it possible for the new system to pay for itself" (Wyden). In other words, Bill would give you exactly the same pay system he currently gives you, but instead of giving you health benefits, he pays you what he would be paying the insurance company, and you use the voucher to choose your company, and if your chosen insurance company is more expensive than the voucher provides for, you can use the extra money from work to pay it off. "Regarding efficient administration, the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service are able to accomplish their missions relative, potentially, to the whole population. " I once got a letter from the IRS saying that I owed them $10,000. I owed no such money. Is that effecient? So what if I got a lobotomy when I asked to have an appendectomy? And the IRS is not a fair comparison anyway, as they collect much more money than they need to operate. 3) Third argument: "For thirty years I practice law. I interacted with government (and private corporate) bureaucrats every day. This is my opinion: Generally, most bureaucrats are honest, competent, and just want to do their job and stay out of trouble. Some are incompetent. And some are corrupt. The bureaucrat, WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT OR A PRIVATE CORPORATION, has a certain mentality. All such bureaucrats are potentially corruptible, INCLUDING THE BUREAUCRATS WHO WILL ADMINISTER THE HAA. " You are correct that they are corruptable. But with a private option, the most likely consequence of a corrupt bureaucrat would be that it would turn into a monopoly by using tax money to superfund it, so they can cut rates to crazy lows. With single payer, a corrupt bureaucrat could essentially cut off health insurance to everyone. Now compare that to the HAA. With a corrupted bureaucrat, it seems that the worst they could do is cut all funds, essentially bringing us back to our current system. It's bad, but much better than the other two. Also, when the economy is hurting, everything is impacted, and often the easiest way to provide aid is to cut funds from socialized areas. For example, I know many teachers, as well as students in Oregon public schools. Now our governor has some budget issues to deal with, and so he decides that some government employees should go a few days without pay. He committed a few days, and guess which government employees he told to work without pay. That's right, the teachers. I'm not sure why, although he is the oldest governor in the nation, maybe he doesn't care about the future, I'm not sure. But my point is, something similar could happen to healthcare. I don't want the government to decide how much coverage I get, I want to decide how much coverage to get, but I also want those less fortunate to have the ability to have a decision, and that decision should allow them to have decent health coverage from the company of their choosing. This has been an excellent debate, and I would like to thank my opponent, Dogparktom, for providing such interesting arguments. I know you have a choice in which healthcare provider to use, and I think that choice should cost you less!

At this time I will rebut Pro's case. P1. SOCIAL FREEDOM Pro describes how much our freedom may increase under a SOL system; yet, he fails to justify how this is a good thing. It seems to me that giving people the freedom to "own a pet tiger and let it maul you" is actually a bad thing--while this may maximize your right freedom, it undermines your right to life. Life seems, on face, like a much more desirable thing to retain than the near-absolute freedom Pro is forced to advocate for. Surely, the type of restrictions we have in our current system still allow us the necessary space and liberty to self-actualize, while ensuring that our own foolhardiness doesn't jeopardize our right to life. P2. ECONOMIC FREEDOM Pro says that taxes would plummet--in fact, under SOL, taxes would be illegal. SOL states that we own the products of our labor, and taking away those products by force is theft. Therefore, all taxation is theft. The government could only be run through voluntary donations; so, it is completely possible that the government might not have the money to run its police, military, and judicial arms due to a lack of voluntary donations by the public it serves. This is definitely going to undermine Pro's first argument about social freedom. It also derails Pro's flat tax plan as being Con, not Pro, ground. In other words, I could implement Pro's plan, but Pro can't. Moreover, since government cannot regulate the markets, America would likely see a repeat of the industrial horrors of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, where companies put out unsafe products, grossly underpaid their workforce, and accrued monopolies to extort exorbitant fees out of consumers. This would lower quality of life in America. With no one able to check against abuses, companies are free to abuse. For example, if companies in the food industry decide they want to massively underpay their workers to increase profits, they could do it. If they then decided to increase the prices of food, they could also do it because, like OPEC and oil, the cartel has an effective monopoly that prevents competition from driving down prices. There is no reason this wouldn't occur in every single industry, making it virtually impossible to find good paying jobs, or cheap products. The income gap would skyrocket, and upward mobility would freeze (the rich save money for themselves, vice giving back to their workers). Adam Smith himself wrote, "The landlords' role in the economic process is passive. Their ability to reap a revenue solely from ownership of land tends to make them indolent and inept, and so they tend to be unable to even look after their own economic interests." [1] Companies are wholly self-interested, profit-motivated entities. There has to be a separate entity out there balancing the scales in favor of the public welfare. 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Cool, I'm down.So there's a lot of fancy emotional rhetoric used to stir up the feels, but the three claims he makes are really straight-forward: nationalize housing to bring cost of living down, 3D print out some cities to encourage some jobs to come back from overseas because cheaper housing?STARTING WITH THE NATIONALIZATION:First, the entire plan is extremely utopian. He just lists out a bunch of random things without any actual explanation as to how they are going to happen, if they'll even work, or if they can even happen in the first place (more on this later).Second, there's physically zero way to impliment this plan. Constitutionally the gov't isn't going to be able to just go up to every private housing company and say "hey fam, your profits are ours now" as would happen with nationalization. Moreover, where is all this "credit" coming from that he's handing out to people? Who's paying for all of this "credit"? The government? I thought the entire point was to reduce the amount of debt we're in, not spend more money.Third, it's a little ridiculous to have him claim that to reduce national debt we need to nationalize housing markets. I feel like someone's forgetting the last time this was tried with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and how well that one actually turned out for the tax payers. Just as a quick run down of what that actually did to the economy:- It killed stock value of the two companies and screwed over 100% of the shareholders of the company, who went from making bank off of their investments to getting exactly $0 from their shares.[1] Market value for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares plummeted. If people lose a reason to invest into housing markets, then either a) housing companies are going to fail and collapse, meaning that we won't actually be able to produce anywhere near the amount of houses that would be required for his "Never a homeless American again" claim, or b) the government would have to spend obscene amounts of money (an exact figure being $238 billion), which means we go further into debt rather than climb out of it.[1]So right from the get-go his plan fails. There's no real way to nationalize the entire housing industry, nor is there any explanation as to how it will work in the way he claims it will work. Moreover, attempts at this in the past have failed miserably for both the tax payers and the government, meaning that it will have the opposite effects to his overall desired goals. Easy neg vote right here.BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! GOING TO THE 3D PRINTED CITIES STUFF:....what the hell are 3D printed cities?First, we can't actually do any of these things right now. Experts in the field predict that it's going to take 100 years before we have the capability to mass produce the number of houses that would be required to give a home to every single person as he's wanting to[2], meaning that his plan here is literally impossible.Second, wanna ask the question of why 3D printed cities are cheaper and more efficient as he's claiming. Because they eliminate the number of people who are actually working on building houses to **1** person[3]. That's why labor and material costs are lower and the cities are more efficient, is because there's no one actually working there to pay in the first place. This is the exact opposite definition of bringing home jobs - not only is the market going to be terrible because there's no actual investment being made into it by the public (meaning that they either fail or the gov't is spending loads more money to keep them floating) which means that employers who want to be able to actually make some money aren't going to come back, but we're laying off 90% of the labor that goes into building houses in present day. He's not actually bringing home jobs, he's killing what jobs are actually left.Third, the math behind the total build time of these houses in general looks hella sketchy. If the source is true and this tech he wants to use is capable of "building a 100-square-meter concrete house within 24 hours, or a 1,000-square-foot house within 10 days" to quote directly from the article[3], those times look really strange. What's 100 square meters look like in feet? A hair over 1000 square feet[4]. So it takes one day to build a house, but ten days to build a virtually identical house? The logic behind this tech makes no sense.Fourth, there's no reason to believe that the increased efficiency of these cities (presuming we can even make them on the scale he wants) will actually go to the things he's saying they could go to. If anything any actual savings from energy efficiency would need to go into actually making sure this won't bankrupt the government with the total costs of trying to nationalize the housing market. So he doesn't actually get access to any of the benefits he says he gets access to.SO TO WRAP THINGS UPHis idea sounds nice. It's a nice thought - a house for everyone so that there's no homeless and we don't need to worry about paying for houses anymore. But then we wake up from the dream we were in and realize that there's no way that this could ever actually happen without disasterous consequences. Pretty easy negative vote here.SOURCES:[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - https://3dprint.com...[3] - https://3dprint.com...[4] - https://www.google.com...

Responding to your question about round 3, round 3 will be primarily for rebuttals and closing. Barack Obama is not a Socialist. Socialism is an economic system that basically gives the means of production of a society to public or state ownership. Socialism is not a permanent form of government either. Socialism is basically the transition phase between Capitalism and Communism; Capitalism: An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market Socialism: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Communism: A final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably. Mixed Economy: An economic system that allows the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://thefreedictionary.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Okay, Obama has not implemented "Socialist" policies or politics. He is not saying the government should eliminate private industries, eliminating Wall Street, and making the government hold all of the property correct? Those who say "Obama is a Socialist" are just right wing loons for propaganda purposes. http://answers.yahoo.com... Now, if Obama WAS a Socialist, we would see the Government taking over private industries and the wealth being massively redistributed. Here is the scenario that would occur if Obama was a Socialist and implementing Socialist policies: Obama would brought back all of the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and close down the Guantanamo Bay camp as well as give back that land to Cuba because "as a fellow Socialist nation to another" that would be the right thing to do. Then, Socialist Obama would send the I.R.S. and the F.B.I. to raid Wall Street and its institutions and prosecute the CEOs and Presidents of the financial sector to the fullest extent of the law. Then, the U.S. would gain control of Wall Street's assets for the Government and then for redistribution. Then, instead of just saving G.M. and the Big 3 automakers from bankruptcy, Obama would nationalize these corporations. Then, large scale works programs such as those from the 1930s would be implemented to repair America's infrastructure and create hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs. http://theageofnepotism.com... In actuality: Obama and the Democratic Party he is part of has implemented non-Socialistic policies. They have created the Stimulus program to prevent the U.S. economy from collapsing, which also helped Corporate America's incomes and profits reach record levels. Also, the health care mandate in 2010 that doesn't take place until 2014 for the most part is hardly Socialistic, especially compared to the N.H.S. in Britain which gives all people free, Socialized Medicine (Gov't controls Health Care and Insurance). F.D.R.'s New Deal was more Socialistic than Obama's programs, even though that program (New Deal) was not Socialistic either especially compared to world standards of Socialism. Lastly, the top Socialists in America are not calling Obama a Socialist, but a "market guy" who is just altering the current system of Capitalism that the U.S. has, not instituting a Socialist economy. They won't even call him a Socialist. http://www.politicsdaily.com...

Extending the Time Frame The below sentence is one of the most important point in Con’s argument, so I will address this first. “Each of these points is easily addressed by extending the time frame with which a particular area becomes anarchistic.” That is not true. Point A is becomes stronger by extending the time frame, as the country will be split into smaller and smaller factions. Point B will be stronger over time if Point A holds true. The smaller regions will have a smaller military. If private companies control the military, how can the issue of the accountability of private industries (Point C) be solved over time? There is no one to hold the industries accountable. Point D will also not be solved over time, given Con’s position of allowing companies to own the military. Point E (with regards to investment) will become stronger since Point A and Point B become stronger. With regards to currency depreciation and the issue with fiat currency though, Con is correct in pointing out that this problem can be solved over time. Point F will also become stronger (if not weaker). Since companies control the military (as Con suggests) they can easily bend the rules of the community for their own benefit, and inequality will rise over the years. Point G will also arguably be stronger. As time passes, there would be more monopolies. Con must show how extending the time frame would refute Points A-G. As my opponent has failed to do so, the claim does not stand (Except for part of Point E). Further Rebuttals Point A The question is not whether an individual can work well with another individual, but whether a community can work well with another community. A community could easily become self-sufficient. Let’s assume there were two cities: City A and City B. City A is rich, and City B is poor. The people of A would not likely want to associate/help the citizens of B. Point B “As I mentioned, some public services will be pushed into private industry. One such service is military” Arguably even more detrimental to freedom than having a small military. If a private industry controls the military, the industry would dictate everything in the region. “The cost of an invasion would surely exceed the financial gain, thus rendering the invasion entirely counter-productive” This is not true. The small area may be rich in natural resources or some other strategic value. Throughout history, small areas have been often invaded. In recent times, Luxembourg was invaded by Nazi Germany. Singapore was occupied by Japan. In medieval times, Jerusalum was often invaded. “If the anarchist community falls within the region of a State, the anarchists are protected anyway.” Most likely the anarchist community will not be treated in the same as the original citizens of the state. They probably would be heavily taxed. They probably wouldn’t be able to vote. The invading army could occupy the conquered region. In worst cases, war crimes could be committed on its inhabitants. The inhabitants would live in fear, as the conquerers could essentially do anything to them. This is detrimental to the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Point C As defined by dictionary.com, a corporation is defined as “an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members”[1]. As recognized by my opponent in R1, laws exist in anarchies, therefore corporations exist. Even if my opponent was correct, I could simply restate my argument as: in an anarchy, there is no regulation of private industries (This is the term used by Con). No regulation of some industries, such as banking, will prove to be directly detrimental to the “pursuit of happiness” of individuals, as shown in the 2008 financial crisis. Point D “A cost-benefit analysis will show that it is preferable to have the rich receive lenient treatment than to have the State entirely exempt from the law.” My opponent states that this is “the position we are in currently”. The question is whether anarchy is detrimental to freedom and growth of society, not that the State is detrimental to freedom. However, I will still address this point. While it is true that the rich can “buy out their way of situations”, they are not technically “above law”. Basically, they can try to find loopholes in the law, but they cannot break the law. In Con’s proposed system, industries are free to break the law, as they would control the military and the police force. Governments today are undoubtedly more tolerant to the rich, but they still crack down on them. For instance, Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom was sentenced to 25 years in jail by a federal court[2]. This is better than not cracking down them at all, which would happen in Con’s anarchy. Contrary to Con’s suggestion, the State is not exempt from the law. For instance, in a democratic country, we can impeach the president. Additionally, the people can elect the government. The people can’t elect the head of the private industries, which will control the military as in Con’s anarchy. In this case, it would be the private industries and wealthy elite that is exempt from the law. Con’s anarchy would invest the rich and the wealth with much power. This would cause harm to lower and middle class citizens. Point E “C1 is in regards to military security. Investors are more concerned with financial security”. Investors are mainly concerned with financial security, but they are still concerned with military security, as Con admits in the statement above (“more concerned” implies that investors are “still concerned” with military security, which is related to financial security). Additionally, investors would not want to invest/run a company in a region that has a potential to secede (Point A). For instance, when Quebec wished to secede from Canada, the private industries in Montreal migrated to Toronto. The lack of investment and companies would directly decrease the living standards of people in the region. Point F Con has made an incorrect assumption about human nature in this point. Con is assuming that most people tilt towards the altruistic side of things. “If the issue is public funding, charities will do just as well, if not better, than taxes, especially when people are getting all of the money they worked to earn.” Charities can’t raise as much money as taxes. Additionally, 97% of the money an individual gives to charity never gets into the hands of people that need it[3]. Anarchies wouldn’t be able to mitigate the harsh conditions inflicted on the country’s poor, and would be therefore detrimental to their “pursuit of happiness”. Point G “In relation to monopolies and buyouts, the fact that a monopoly ‘can’ exploit workers does not then mean they will exploit workers.” History has proven time after time that monopolies will abuse their powers (Modern economic theory also supports this). Rational human beings will want to maximize their profits. The exploitation would be detrimental to the people’s pursuit of happiness. Additionally, monopolies also decreases competition and the efficiency of the market. This would slow down society’s growth[4]. “If they are, indeed, being exploited, the suit should go through, assuming it was class action” The suit will most likely not go through. As the rich companies can hire better lawyers. Additionally, as Con suggested, the rich companies would support the military, therefore these companies would essentially be above the law. [1] https://www.google.ca... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://thetruthwins.com... [4] https://www.inkling.com...


Question: Should Social Security Be Transformed into Private Accounts?

Social Security is facing insolvency due to the aging workforce.

"Is Privatizing Social Security a Viable Solution?" Los Angeles Times: "The current Social Security system is on a collision course with insolvency, as the retirement of the baby boomer generation places an unprecedented strain on the program. With 70 million baby boomers set to retire, the ratio of workers to retirees is rapidly declining. In 1946, there were 42 workers supporting each retiree, but we are now approaching a scenario where only two workers will bear the burden of each retiree. This shift will inevitably place immense pressure on the younger workforce, who will be taxed heavily to fund the benefits. According to projections, by 2016, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, marking the beginning of significant financial troubles."

Response point to Response Point 1: Substandard is a matter of perspective. Education in Scandinavia is not substandard by any means. Nor healthcare. Nor insurance. You once again use the argument "In America... [uncited opinion]". This debate IS NOT ABOUT AMERICA. Please realize this and look at it globally. "So Bad it's unconstitutional", whose constitution? Please leave YOUR country out of it, unless the examples you give can make a case for or against either system, independent of that country. America is not Socialist, therefore you cannot rate Socialism on the success/failure of America's social programs. Also, you claim that "you can pay [insurance] into the Government, and then pay for it again with taxes." ^Wrong. You pay taxes, and you get education and insurance AS A RESULT. It's essentially the same as paying a health insurer or college yourself, but the government manages it for you. RRP2: A Socialist government does not bailout businesses that fail. You have no evidence to support your claim that it does, either. Let's keep this civilized, please. RRP3: If you make $50,000 a year, then next year you make $55,000, are you going to put more into your savings account? Yes. Will that cycle your money back into the economy? NO. In fact, banks circulate your money through loans and investments, creating a financial gap with the money that ACTUALLY exists and the money that exists in computers. [10] RRP4: "Wikipedia is one of the most reliable and non-biased sources on the Internet" = False "The citizens are richer" = also false. They have more money, this does not make them richer by any means. In fact, when you factor for inflation, you'll see that income has stayed fairly constant compared to the income growth of the infamous "1%" that capitalists take no issue with. [11] RRP5: If Government owns the business, would they not have the right to hire who they like? In this regard, is the government owning a business in any way different from individuals owning a business? Are there not incompetent business owners? RRP6: In Capitalism, the driving force is competition, and you acknowledged this earlier in the debate. Now you state "it is not and should not be the goal of Capitalism". Regardless of whether or not it is the goal, it creates substandard business practices for the benefit of getting ahead. It is a byproduct of Capitalism that wears it down over time. RRP7: Competition does not increase prices, greed does. If BOTH competitors are greedy, prices will go up regardless. As for your argument about Substandard products, in a choice between quality and price most consumers pick low-cost items because they are cheaper. Walmart is a fine example of cheap, foreign-made goods ousting local business through unethical practices. RRP8: You speak as though people will only purchase what they can afford. This is false. Many buy items well-beyond their spending limit through credit cards and such, while others buy the cheap option to save themselves money, even if they could afford better. RRP11: the "Social" programs the United States government is enacting are by no means examples of successful socialism. In the Socialist state, people are not GIVEN anything as they are in the U.S.- they WORK for it. The difference is that you technically work FOR the government: It creates a new relationship (that of employer/employee) between the government and the citizen. This could be partially responsible for the tendency for extreme nationalism in Socialist states, but that is a mere speculation of mine. RRP12: I am not CONDEMNING capitalism by any means. I am suggesting that socialism is a better option. Capitalism works, but it's only short-term in the best of cases. RRP13: Didn't pure capitalism lead to business tycoons, robber barons, tenements, hoovervilles, and the Great Depression? I think that these examples of the results of pure capitalism are reasons enough to not use it. What "destroyed" America (You've got some nerve saying its destroyed when countries like Somalia and India are impoverished while we're buying IPhones and XBoxes by the millions...) was the strange hybrid-system that the U.S. Government developed, with the government offering the BENEFITS of socialism and the BENEFITS of capitalism, ignoring the detriments (socialism = high taxes, Capitalism = Big Business Domination). Since neither system is complete, both begin to malfunction. RRP14: People knew how to use power properly.... I can't believe what I am hearing. During this time people lived like rats! There was hardly any middle class at all. Up until the 1800's, big business hadn't existed, so everything that happened was experimental and the repercussions were not foreseen. RRP15: Once again, let's keep this civilized. I have no idea what you're talking about. My defense against your attacks: I'm not going to read arguments my opponent is too lazy to write down himself. This is a debate between him and I, and not between journalists and myself. Wikipedia is incapable of destroying ANY arguments. If you wish, you can click on Wikipedia's citations and use THOSE as legitimate sources, however I myself could edit Wikipedia to say whatever I wanted, if I were so inclined. You have made no new statements about the benefits of capitalism which I have not already refuted. You have also not done a very good job of defending Capitalism and fulfilling YOUR burden of proof (since you instigated the debate). Please satisfy these requirements in the last round. [10] http://money.howstuffworks.com... [11] http://www.globalissues.org...

Before we begin this debate I feel we must define the term of the resolution. My opponent has neglected to so I will do so here. Capitalism will simply be defined as an economic system which consists of private property and private ownership over the means of production and distribution of goods and resources, voluntary exchange by individuals, and the prohibition of force, fraud or coercion. Socialism will be defined as an economic system which consists of public or common ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and resources and the prohibition of force, fraud, or coercion. My opponent also somewhat described a primary goal of socialism being to "redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without." We will add this to the definition of socialism, seeing as it would not make sense for my opponent to say it had we not. I will also ask my opponent what form of socialism he is defending. I will, depending on his answer, offer a full critique of it in the next round. Different forms of socialism would be state socialism, pure communism,and left libertarianism. For now I will simply focus on my opponent's specific points. As for the definition of better, this seems tricky. Because the term 'better' can have so many different meanings, I will list a few so as to give my opponent and readers of this debate the best understanding of the term. Better: of superior quality or excellence[1] Greater in excellence or higher in quality[2] something superior in quality or condition or effect[3] I, for the sake of this debate, will ask that my opponent not bring any semantical arguments to this debate. For this debate, arguments which attempt to negate or affirm the resolution on the basis of definitions alone should not be used. It is only because of the vague nature of the term 'better' that I ask this. I will ask that my opponent acts in good faith. Now as for my opponent's arguments I will try to list them below and refute them if necessary. The BOP will necessarily be on my opponent as Pro and instigator of this debate. (A)""The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none."" Either-or fallacy. Why must all wealth belong to everyone or no one? (B)Rich have no reason to work. Here my opponent argues that because the rich are rich "they have no incentive to use their land productively." Ignoring the fact that my opponent here fallaciously assumes that all rich people were born rich and does not in any way account for people who personally made their own fortunes, this point of my opponent's completely contradicts another point which he brings up later in his case. I quote my opponent: //"Many could be motivated to work by a wish to aid their fellow man"// In this quote my opponent argues that people can be just as much motivated to work to help others than for profit. So I ask my opponent if people can work without a profit incentive, then why should it matter that rich people have not as much to gain y using their land productively? Also, seeing as for this scenario, the rich are assumed to be using the system of capitalism as opposed to socialism. If we are to assume that they are in a capitalistic setting then they will always have the profit incentive. There is no point that one becomes so rich that it is not possible to be richer. In fact the "rich" would have more incentive to use their wealth to acquire more seeing as it would be easier for them to do so considering their access to more resources. I would also like to use my opponent's own point as a critique of his own system of socialism. It is actually when a system of socialism is in place, that there is no profit incentive. My opponent admits this saying that people would "share wealth and material amongst the community, to support all, leaving none behind". But I will ask the readers, what force is strongest in the world currently? Charity or selfishness. Of course when I use the word 'selfishness' I do not mean it in the general negative connotation of one who only cares about one's self and will trample over anyone to get what he wants. I simply mean it in an egoistic sense of caring for one's survival. The difference between capitalism and socialism is that socialism is completely run on moral principles of egalitarianism and equality. However this is the very reason that it does not work. Because these qualities are not dominant in the human species. Humans are biologically programmed to care for themselves and their progeny. Capitalism utilizes this fact to provide services that others want and need. Capitalism is at the base, built on egoistic principles, but it's consequences are generally much more humanitarian than that of socialism's. This is all I will write at the moment. I do not think I can write more without knowing what specific form of socialism my opponent is advocating. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3]wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

My first observation regarding the resolution stands; thus, all of the rhetoric my opponent uses describing the current state of the economy without reference to change over time is irrelevant. His rationalization that America isn’t that socialist, it’s only part socialist is irrelevant; although, I do agree with him in that the US economy is partially socialist: 24.0% according to the “Economic Freedom of the World: 2011 Annual Report” and 22.2% according to “The 2011 Index of Economic Freedom. ”My second observation regarding the resolution stands; thus, since the Pro has not proven Obama to be free of all Socialist inclination or advocations, Con has already won. But, Pro helps me so much more than just conceding the win by arguing Con points such as: Obama's Economic Stimulus Package, his Health Care Mandate, estate tax, progressive tax, and the Federal Reserve. I think he may be arguing the Con side better than I am arguing the Con side. Either way, thank you for being kind and lenient to a beginning debater. Signposting I will deconstruct my opponent's case; I will then move on to uphold my case; and then I will bring up some key voting issues in today's debate. DeconstructionIn his case, I will refer to each argument by paragraph, after the definitions. P1: "Obama has not implemented Socialist policies or politics. "Crossify my arguments that demonstrate his socialist policies. P2: "if Obama WAS a Socialist, we would see the Government taking over private industries and the wealth being massively redistributed. "P3: "Obama would brought back all of the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and close down the Guantanamo Bay camp as well as give back that land to Cuba because "as a fellow Socialist nation to another" that would be the right thing to do. "P4: "Then, Socialist Obama would send the I. R. S. and the F. B. I. to raid Wall Street and its institutions and prosecute the CEOs and Presidents of the financial sector to the fullest extent of the law. "P5: "Then, instead of just saving G. M. and the Big 3 automakers from bankruptcy, Obama would nationalize these corporations. Then, large scale works programs such as those from the 1930s would be implemented to repair America's infrastructure and create hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs. "P2 through P5 are hypotheticals which essentially try demostrate that if Obama was a Socialist, then sweeping reforms of a specific type of Socialism (Centrally-Planned Socialism) would immediately take place. My response to this is three pronged. One: the premise rests upon several fallacies. Irrelevant Conclusion, Irrelevant Reason (a specific non sequitur), and Slippery Slope (albeit a very steep and quick slippery slope). Two: My second contention states that, "the institutions of a country and its people and values cannot change commensurate and consonant with a leader’s will. " Thus, showing resistance and a slow transition beween political/economic systems represents reality, and exemplifies our nation's transition to a more socialist economy under Obama. Three: Tacitly conceding Obama's socialist principles. Saving G. M. and the Big 3 automakers is a socialist policy in and of itself. A capitalist principle is perfect competition, not the government rescuing select failing businesses. Obama has partially nationalized these corporations; thus, the resolution is doubly negated with the same point. Obama has proposed and staunchly advocated a Jobs Bill that would be implemented to repair America's infrastructure, thus artificially creating jobs while simultaneously increasing the federal debt and federal spending. Triple negation of the resolution in one paragraph by the Pro side? I think it's a world record! Call up the people at Guinness! P6: "In actuality: Obama and the Democratic Party he is part of has implemented non-Socialistic policies [e. g. stimulus bill, health care mandate, Obama is a 'market guy]. "Direct contradiction is amply demonstrated in providing an example of how the United State's central bank (a socialist institution) has, with Obama's signature, implemented the stimulus bill (artificial economic stimulation via the government check). Obama's health care mandate: Ronald Reagan once said, "One of the traditional methods of imposing socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project; most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. " This was spoken during a campaign against socialized health care programs. Obama is a 'market guy': see [Market Socialism]. He helps support my claim of the ten planks of communism being implemented in the US by kindly providing them. I will now describe each plank’s use in the US:1. The 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution (1868)2. The 16th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936. ; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933.3. Federal & State estate Tax (1916).4. Government seizures, tax liens.5. The Federal Reserve act of 1913. 6. The FCC and DOT mandated through the ICC act of 1887.7. DOL, DOI, EPA, BLM, USBR, USBM, NPS, and the IRS control of business through regulations.8. Minimum Wage. Seen in practice via the Social Security Administration and The DOL.9. Planning Reorganization act of 1949, zoning, and Super Corporate Farms, several Executive orders.10. Taxation to support 'public' schools. Even private schools are government regulated. Obama has continued these Socialist policies enacted by former Presidents and Congresses. Thus, by not challenging or decreasing each policy, law, and statute’s power, he is implicitly supporting each. However, Obama is more than just a Socialist by default. He has publicly supported (advocated) several of these institutions/policies: 2,3,5,7,8,10 and carried out (practiced) policies and/or bills to strengthen 2,3,5,8,10.2 - proposition to increase taxes on the rich3 - proposition to increase estate tax5 - increasing federal government’s role in the economy8 - Obama’s Jobs Bill10 - Advocates federally funded public schools sometimes even at public schools. A primary feature of his 2011 State of the Union Address. UpholdMy contentions, obervations, and argumentation have been untouched by the Pro rendering the fortification of my case unecessary. Voting IssuesI have won an evident victory. It is for all the preceding reasons, arguments, and logic that provide the impetus for a con ballot in today's debate. Thank you for reading, judging, and debating! SourcesUnited States becoming more Socialist under Obama:. http://www.thirdreport.com...http://www.weeklystandard.com...http://dailycaller.com...http://www.foxnews.com...Obama ’s Socialist Policies:. http://articles.businessinsider.com...http://www.thirdreport.com...http://www.foxnews.com...http://purplepeoplevote.com...Socialist Policies of Previous Presidents + Obama:. http://blog.nj.com...Socialist Stimulus Bill---. http://www.news-leader.com...US government in agreement with 10 planks of Communism (last stage of Socialism) which Obama continues:. http://www.libertyzone.com...http://laissez-fairerepublic.com...

The pro speaker has not posted about certain debate rule format so I will make my own to not cause an unfair advantage. This first round will just be my opening argument and I will not attack or refute any of the pro speakers points until the next round. The pro speaker seems to be very well organized and probably better than myself. I still hope to be a challenge for him. Now this debate is about social democracy. I am fine with the way my opponent has defined it but if I my add to it. The word socialism is used a lot lately without a strong understanding of what it is. Socialism is defined by Google as a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. I would like to state that there is no socialist government as socialism implies that there is no government; the economy and policy is decided by everyone. So when we speak about social democracy, we say that we want to come close to this in democratic means. But the issue stands as there is no real social democracies that have achieve true socialism. With that said, I would argue that socialism is simply not achievable foe the United States because of our overall temperament and the size of our country. As a country, we but the idea of "I" higher than the nation or "us". This has been with us since out inception and it will be difficult if not impossible to get rid off. Without the support of the masses, socialism cannot be done democratically. Also, America is a special place and it is difficult to compare it to other countries. We have over 300 million people living here with all different ideologies, race, ethnicity, and origins. My mother immigrated from Peru which is much more socialist than America. I go back every year and see mass poverty and a corrupt government. The problem is that socialism is defined as no government but can only really be achieve by violent revolution or big government; and we have seen time and time again that when the government becomes unchecked, it grows corrupt with power. I would also argue that socialism does not work in the way we intend. The economy is complex and when we try to change it to our whim, we end up making the problem worse. We can see this best in the stag-flation crisis in the 1970's. The economy slowed to a halt and the Federal reserve responded is lowering interest rates and flooding the economy with money and welfare programs to kick the economy back up. The result was rapid inflation and a scare that the economy was about to crash. People would not spend their money and banks would not give out loans in fear of a collapse that would make the money worthless. The fix? A new chairman of the Federal reserve. He raised interest rates and cut spending which caused a small rescission... but inflation also stopped. In time the economy recovered as it always does. This whole event could have been avoided if the government stayed out of the economy. There are countless examples of government intervention causing inadvertent problems later. We are successful as a nation and will continue to grow and be the best. We as a nation would never allow a social democracy to develop and even if it does, it would be bad for everyone.

Pro has his first argument, it claims that capitalism causes economic inequality. That is true. Some people work hard, have an education and are motivated. Therefore, if some people are wealthy than they deserved it. You also state that "Since their is a very limited amount of money in any economy's circulation if a few people hoard a lot of the wealth that means there is very little to be shared with the multitude of masses." as if to say that is a bad thing. If you have money, you get to decide what to do with it. You want to share it, go ahead. You want to save it? Go ahead. Wanna spend it on a Starbucks coffee? Go ahead. Your money. Pro goes on to how the economic inequality from capitalism causes poverty. That is also true. There are poor people in this world. A larger number of people living in poverty commit suicide than normal people. Here is why: if poor people don't contribute to society, that's why they don't get a paycheck. Pro explains how poor people have it bad. I've just established that poor people have it bad because they don't do anything for other people but live. Pro claims that socialism helps people in poverty. That is because poor people will be able to have access to goods and services that normal people do. Basically, everything will be public except for clothes, watches, etc. Now, if this was capitalism then it would be better because things would be privatized. This is a genuine question: why do you care about the poor?

Your First Paragraph: Thank you for conceding the following factual points from the article that I rely upon which is at http://www.twincities.com... : "Lesson No. 1: A single-payer system would eliminate most U.S. coverage problems. Lessons No 2 and 3: Single-payer systems reduce duplicative administrative costs and can negotiate lower prices. Lesson No. 4: Single-payer plans can deliver the goods because their funding goes to services, not overhead. Lesson No. 5: Canadian health care delivery problems have nothing to do with our single-payer system and can be fixed by re-engineering for quality." Your "Sketchiness": You cite the following quote from your article: "everyone -- not just those who currently get insurance through their employer -- would get a generous standard deduction that they would use to buy insurance -- and keep the excess if they buy a less expensive policy" (Wyden)." I respond: A "generous standard deduction" is not a voucher. The former is valuable only if the individual has an adequate taxable income. But many people work at minimum wage, or low income jobs. They frequently pay no income taxes because they don't make enough. A new "generous standard deduction" will not give them money to buy private medical insurance. THEY MAKE TOO MUCH TO QUALIFY FOR THEIR COUNTY OR STATE MEDICAL INSURANCE ENTITLEMENT PLANS BUT NOT ENOUGH TO AFFORD THE PREMIUMS FOR A PRIVATE PLAN. THEY ARE THE 46 MILLION UNINSURED. You state: "A voucher system would preserve the current costly (administrative costs of all health insurance companies - is just one component) status quo." But how would a public option or single payer be any different?" Frankly, a public plan can serve as a price control. I have Medicare which pays X amount for Y procedure. But the provider may charge a private insurance company a higher price for Y procedure. Unlike United Healthcare, a government health plan agency will probably not pay $490 million to a retiring executive. You state: "A few years ago the CEO of United Health Care retired. His retirement package was $490 million! $490 Million! $490 MILLION! I hope my point is evident." Unfortunately, you have just laid out an exceptional argument for evolution. If we were intelligently designed, we would be way less greedy and we would be able to do the best for the company and the people, instead of what's best for the CEO. But the head of the public option or national health system would also be human, so I see no inherent benefit." I respond: See my preceding comment. United Healthcare is a private company governed by a board of directors and articles of incorporation, bi-laws, and policies . The board approves the compensation. The only external CHECK relative to EXCESSIVE EXPENSES are the shareholders. But public agencies have more CHECKS on their actions, such as: 1) employees must act according to PUBLIC laws and regulations; 2) they are subject to Politics, 3) they may run afoul of an investigative press or a investigative blogger like Matt Drudge; 4) and don't forget about vigilant tort lawyers who need lawsuits, etc. Your Second Argument: You Quote: "The Republicans agreed to require all individuals to have coverage and to provide subsidies where necessary to ensure that everyone can afford it. Most have agreed to require employers to contribute to the system and to pay workers wages equal to the amount the employer now contributes for health care." I respond: Group health insurance is a fringe benefit. Not all employers currently provide the benefit. They can't afford it. I know a young lady who works as a nanny for two sets of high income parents. She is paid an hourly rate with no benefits. She can't afford health insurance and earns too much to be eligible for the Ramsey county medical assistance. An employer (or those employing my nanny friend) reading your above quote would be wise NOW to not buy insurance for his employees. Regarding the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, I agree that since the agencies are administered by human beings (who have flaws) they occasionally make mistakes. Citing one IRS error from your experience is anecdotal evidence and your argument is based on an over-generalization. Your Third Argument: My Response: We agree that both public and private bureaucrats are corruptible. I think that we disagree with respect to the potential CHECKS on their actions. I contend (above) that their are more potential checks on the public bureaucrat. Accordingly, I think that the potential adverse effects ( your school teacher situation) are less in the public sector. I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT FAR MORE PRIVATE EMPLOYEES HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS IN THIS RECESSION THAN HAVE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. SUMMATION: It is difficult for me to argue that the Healthy Americans Act is NOT the best plan because neither the Obama Administration nor the Congressional Democrats have decided upon a specific health reform bill (a bill sent out of the Senate/House conference committee) that is proposed for enactment into law by the Senate and House. I have nothing specific (coverage or costs) to base a claim of superiority upon. If I understand the HAA accurately, it provides the following: 1. High income employee with employer provided health insurance - He gets an enhanced standard health deduction even though he may not need it. 2. Low income uninsured employee - he gets a voucher to purchase insurance. 3. NO income uninsured person - he gets a voucher to purchase insurance. Employees 2 and 3 are receiving an entitlement ( I receive two entitlements, Social Security and Medicare - expensive entitlement programs that are running out of funding under current law) I think it is significant that you have not been able to cite an estimated total cost for the HAA. Finally, you have the burden of persuasion. I think that you needed to show certain elements of the HAA that were better than the comparable elements under either single payer or public option plans. But there is no such plan or plans to run a comparative analysis. Except the Canadian single payer plan. I wrote: "Here is the link to the article about the Canadian system that I'm relying upon: http://www.twincities.com...... I hope it works" You responded: "Your link did work this time. I will not deny any claims in the link because it was factual," I respectfully submit that your concession amounts to a concession that the FACTUAL Canadian system is superior to the SPECULATIVE Healthy Americans Act. Further, thus, you have not met your burden of persuasion. Finally, I respectfully suggest that before voting interested parties should read the articles cited by Abard and me. Abard's article http://www.washingtonpost.com... . Mine is at twincities. com just above. Both articles are brief. Abard, I've enjoyed our debate, which is my first. I didn't debate in high school or college. I was a jock in the former and I partied and chased girls in the latter institution. Thanks for taking it easy on an old fart. Tom

For the record, i would vote for Obama, but i would like to debate this topic with you. I would also like to add that this is my first debate, and not an easy one at that. To start, Socialism/ Marxism is an ideology where you have maximum government control over business' with little or no privatley owned business. As you probably saw on the TV, Obama voted for the huge bank bail-out, which puts government control on privatley owned banks, which give loans to and control privatley-owned business in effect. He also advocates bringing in a universal health care system, abolishing the health care companies, which weakens the free market more. The other main part here is his tax scheme, which would tax the wealthist portions of society instead of the lower ones. This is one of the key principals of socialism/marxism. As karl marx wrote 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. ' This translates to 'If someone has more than another, you give him that until you're all square'. To go further, Obama has admitted this, saying he will 'spread the wealth around'. This is oppresing the great 'american dream', where a man can start off small, as maybe a worker, and one day hope to run a large company, without being punished for his/her success. Obama also refuses to give education vouchers to students of private schools, meaning he strongly proposes more children use public schools, which teach them what he wants them to hear. To summarise my first round, Obama has called for more government regulation by voting for the bank bailout, make the population more equal and undiversified by advocating free healthcare and taking money off people who have worked tirelessly for years to get it and preference to students of public schools over ones of priavte schools. All of the above ideologies are socialist and therefore make Obama a socialist.

First off, not all senior citizens are "ticks of society." There are obviously thousands of elderly that do better for the economy than you and me. Very few of the. Are put in elderly homes. There are more independent senior citizens than there are one who need assistance. They shouldn't be alive just because they don't work? They should die because they serve no use, is what you mean I suppose. So in that case children should be euthanized. They're useless beside the fact that they might go on and be of importance. I mean I could give you every example of just useless people in modern society. They're everywhere. Not just the senior citizens. Going along with your ideology, culture infested people should also be euthanized. Hillbilly and rednecks should be euthanized as well. They don't do anything for the economy just like the elderly. They don't go on to do anything useful. They're just a tick on society. Lets euthanize them! Young gangster kids too? All they do is steel and provoke violence right? Murder is the answer? Hobos too? Anyone who loses their home or whom that is poor? They're just in the streets or living off welfare. EUTHANIZE! What about criminals? Someone steels something from a Wal-Mart, sent to jail for weeks or months. Should they too be seamlessly killed? See the human race is above sub petty acts of not dealing with problems. Euthanizing senior citizens would be a very harsh case of social Darwinism. No one wants to die just because they turn old. Think of growing up knowing that we plan on killing you the minute you were 70 or 80. It's just not sensible. Give a case of how that isn't just plain randomness and barbaric.

Thank you again for posting a response. The debate will get good ffrom here on in. Firstly, I agree, one cannot stick to their ideologies in times of crisis. But the question is, when to re-appose your ideologies after the smoke has cleared. Lets take this scenario. McCain is voted into office and runs an 8 year term. If, after the first 4 years, the economy restabilizes, he's going to de-regulate the banks and let the free-market thrive again. This is his Republican ideology. If Obama is voted into office, and after the first 4 years the economy re-stabilizes, he isn't going to de-regulate alot. This will slow the rate at which our economy will grow, as the rich pay more back to the poor, their wealth growth rate under Obama is less than under McCain. Secondly, Socialism has a broad definition, and is often described differently by experts. On all levels, Socialsm has the goals of: 1. Narrowing the gap between rich and poor, 2. Taking power and reducing the influence of corporations and CEO's and 3. Generally putting more government in to peoples lifes. The means of which are 1. Taxing the rich heaveirly than the poor, 2. Publicising sectors such as education and health care and 3. Introducing laws where states can't decide on their own laws and of course, point no.2. If you have even vaguely followed the elections, you will know Obama supports and would implement all 3 of the above. His tax plan gives tax breaks to those who earn under 250,000, he would publicise health care and take away supsidiries for children going to private schools and finally he would keep roe vs wade intact, not allowing for states to choose for themselves and increase gun control, which again, woudn't let states choose. (for what it's worth, I support gun control and am pro-choice, but feel ideologies should be implemented on the most local level possible). To challenge your quote 'But to call someone socialist, implies that their goal is total regulation. I don't think this is true, because this is not the politics Obama is running for president with', I have laid out above that socialism is not total regulation, but infact communism is(Stalinism to be precise). Socialism was designed as the blueprints of Communism but some thought ' This is infact a better ideology than communism '. Obama isn't heavily socialist, he is lightly socialist, moderate at best. Also, Obama is a supporter of a 'nanny-state', where there are more regulations and restrictions. for example, California, a largely democratic state, has numerous nanny laws, such as no smoking in public. Obama even banned his own campaigners from wearing green in china, as to not offend anyobody. Although Obama is for green energy, McCain would give tax breaks to green business' and clean car companies. Obama would just put more regulations in place. Thirdly, A powerful, rich family doesn't necesarilly mean the children are born into a perfect world with the best possible education and vica versa. The man with the highest recorded IQ in the world is Kim Ung-yong, a man with the IQ of 210. He is korean, and born in the 1960's, so whether he's from north, south or before the war, he surely comes from a poor or middle-class background. This is proof that your brains doesn't rely entirely on your education. It is true that powerful families remain in control for decade after decade like royalty, but like this, the wealth is continually divided up as generations progress, companies sometimes weaken and split and this cycle will start over as other big companies emerge or companies will be bought out.The American Dream is that you can become anything , and you argue that in a more idealogical Socialist system, you have an equal starting point. But often, even the best of people come from the slums(Rappers often come from Ghettos with nothing and make something of themselves) in a capitalist system, bacause they are not oppressed in any way. To answer you're question 'Do one really need to be socialist to believe that a better health-care system could improve the possibilities to realize the American dream?'. Health care isn't a factor in the American Dream. The factor is 1. Money and 2.The Economy. Free health care can cost the government alot sometimes, and this can lead to cutbacks in other areas, such as community centres which can inspire people. You also say 'Disease does not distribute fairly. It can happen to the hardest working people, and the laziest.' There is no fault with that. It is 100% true. It most heavily hits the elderly, who are often well off with a pension. However, this includes the people who were sucessful corporate tycoons,businessmen,lawyers,judges,etc. with huge inheritance to pass on, so why should they be given free health care? Yes, health care to people who make ends meet with just enough to add into their sons tuition fee's or their pension, but not tycoons who, yes have provided us with essential services and products, but can fend for themselves with their tidy little profit. To summarise: 1. Obama would have socialist ideologies should the recesion end whilse he is in office, 2. Obama is light/moderate socialist, with goals and means that match socialistic ones and 3. he American dream isn't limited to the well-off and health-care isn't a factor in it. To end, you argued that Health care is comparable to police and Military being privatized as they provide security and safety. The under those circumstances, the PMC's(private Military companies) in the U.S. should be outlawed and acquired by the government. There are more contractors than troops in Iraq, and the PMC's rely on war as funding, so they would lobby for as many war's as possible, reducing safety and security. Doing this would substantially increase the safety and security as it bolsters the army's strength and prevents any military in the U.S. being bought up to attack it's own nation.

raising federal taxes will be inevitable and be the most responsible thing to do the things that make up by far most of the budget are too hard to cut, and we shouldn't be cutting them too much anyway. social security, medicare, interest on the debt, defense, all make up over ninety percent of our budget. even if you wiped out the rest of the government, which would be the height off irresponsibility, you still couldn't even balance the budget, which is five hundred billion dollars. the budget is four trillion, simple math proves my point. if you were to cut into defense majorly and cut the rest by say ten percent, you might be able to balance the budget. but within the next ten years the deficit will double, and there wouldn't be enough places to cut. tax increases are inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do.