Question: Should Social Security Be Transformed into Private Accounts?

Privatizing social security could potentially harm retirees.
As argued by Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the Century Foundation, privatization advocates often emphasize "individual choice" and "personal control," but they assume everyone's accounts will match the overall stock market performance. However, research by Princeton economist Burton G. Malkiel found that professional money managers typically underperformed market indexes over time.[1] Most people lack the knowledge to manage their own investments effectively. A Securities and Exchange Commission report highlighted the extent of financial illiteracy, with half of adults unaware of what a stock market is, and 45% believing it guarantees their portfolio won't suffer during stock market downturns.[2] Considering management costs, individual account growth would likely be lower than the market average, and the private sector isn't necessarily better at making investment decisions than the state.
Privatized accounts would also be vulnerable to market downturns. While long-term returns from shares have historically been positive, retirees who hit retirement age during a stock market downturn would suffer. Economist Paul Krugman noted that privatizers make unrealistic assumptions about market performance to justify their claims that private accounts would outperform the current system. For instance, the price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050, which is highly unrealistic and indicative of an enormous bubble.[4] Low returns could also mean privatized social security might not beat inflation, causing retirees' pensions to lose value over time. Currently, Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which have historically exceeded inflation, providing some protection.
Privatizing social security would also impact those who want to remain in the system through reduced tax revenues. Implementing private accounts would divert 4% of the 12.4% taken from each worker's annual pay, resulting in almost a third of social security tax revenue being removed. This could lead to drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes, exacerbating the system's issues.[5] Privatization of similar social security systems in other countries, like Chile and the United Kingdom, has not been successful, as more than half of all workers are excluded from a safety net during old age.[6] Therefore, privatizing social security could harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and thus, social security should not be privatized.
[1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. <

>Are you saying that there should be no law against falsifying financial statements? Advertisements employ the art of persuasion, where rhetoric and innuendo are appropriate. Financial statements should be factually accurate by law because altering them with incorrect information and causing people to invest money based on that false information is exactly the kind of thing which people should be prohibited from doing. Aren't financial statements generated by the bank? I am all for making sure that banking standards are a strict as possible. >I understand that most corporate failures don't occur from corporate malfeasance. In fact, I spoke on that point in the first round. I also understand that economies eventually recover and that successful businesses absorb their weaker and defunct competition. However, just because corporate fraud doesn't affect every company does not mean it should be left unregulated by law. My point wasn't that most corporate failures don't occur from corporate malfeasance. My point was that most companies don't fail from corporate malfeasance, period. >You argued in the first round that corporate failures do not cause a social harm. Your blanket assertion did not distinguish between the different causes of those failures. My "blanket assertion" was with regard to isolated corporate failures like Enron's, not nationwide economic recessions. Hopefully, your last rebuttal will address the former kind of failure rather than the latter. >SOX is not intended to protect investors from corporate failure; it is intended, in part, to protect investors from crooked practices. Why should they be protected by the government? Why can't they just hire their own auditors? Why shouldn't they be forced to do so? If they can't afford it, they obviously shouldn't be running a corporation. >When businesses fail, it affects more than just the investors and employees, who make up a large portion of society anyway. It affects consumers, related businesses and economies as well. This effect equates to a social harm. Again, we're talking about isolated corporate failures here. When A business fails, its assets are bought out by other companies and put back to work. >Sufficient for what? Early detection of a dubious investment is a utopian notion. In reality, deception often goes undetected for a substantial period of time or occurs after a period of ostensibly legitimate activity and practices. Such was the case in all of the pre-SOX corporate debacles. Red flags don't just pop up at the first instance of fraudulent activity. By the time they do, it may already be too late. To equate spotting a crack-head on the edge of a sketchy neighborhood to recognizing sophisticated and surreptitious white collar crime is a bit of a stretch. Your model of the investor/executive relationship presupposes that investors will have very little to do with how the business will be set up and run. If the investors were more involved in the process of creating Enron, I doubt that the byzantine accounting practices that made the debacle possible would have been put in place. I have no trouble with economically forcing investors to work on their investments. >SOX serves the interests of people who disagree with the notion of getting ripped off, which includes me, the government and an overwhelming majority of the country. The "notion" of getting ripped off is not nearly as important a reality as the fact that the group of people getting ripped off is very select. >A large number of shareholders cannot practically or effectively run a corporation without delegating certain roles to certain members. SOX sets a legal standard for these trusted positions, as it should for the power they hold. It is not an intrusion into capitalism. And the ones with the most power should be peopled with those the shareholders can trust. If they can't screen their most important employees with the kind of competence necessary to prevent fraud, they shouldn't be investing in a company. >Businesses cannot put people behind bars. They can make sure that some people never work again. They can blacklist people and shut them out of the workforce. They can actually do a lot of things if they can be bothered to. >Are you saying the law should only protect property that is necessary to survival? The law protects me from someone stealing my wallet, even if I only had $1 in it. So why shouldn't it protect me from someone stealing my investments? In the context of Corporate America, SOX decreases the incentive, opportunity and means to cheat the public and allows for the harsh punishment of those who attempt to do so. This is where we just have to agree to disagree. I make a very clear distinction between "private property" and "personal property", you do not. The difference between the two is almost a matter of taste, and so can't be debate very clearly.

So what I see is your only real concern to debate here is basically the definition of privacy. Depending on the way you look at it you can consider it either as outdated or not outdated. To try and get a good definition of what privacy is, it's important to consider why privacy is so valued. Privacy comes about because people want separation between themselves and the rest of the world. This can be likened to the walls of a house; what is you is on one side, and what is not you is kept on the other side, without overlap. While the extent of material that someone considers private can vary person to person, each individual has their own clearly defined barriers which constitute what is and isn't private for them. Material like your cellphone number isn't private sometimes and public sometimes, you either make it available to everyone who wants it or you don't. Now what new inventions such as the internet do is they break down the clearly defined barriers by creating overlap between what is your private information and what isn't. Social media does this by collecting your personal information and feeding it to corporate entities. Websites do it by requiring your information to create accounts, and often using it to send you products and updates. Ads do it by looking at your details and search history to show you things you might like. This is all before you consider the possible effects of hackers or computer viruses, or what happens when something goes wrong. Because of all of this, the barriers between our personal lives and outside society have become blurred, and this counteracts the core concepts of what privacy really is. As such, the norm of privacy is totally outdated.

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...

I thought it was common knowledge that when you age you lose bone mass or density. When that happens you are more likely to break bones than a younger person. Hence when an elderly man/woman needs help when they have fallen because they are frail. Also Franklin D. Roosevelt had polio. FDR actually tried to keep his disability out of pictures so that he didn't seem like a weak old man in front of the world. He would not permit people to take his picture in his wheel chair it was NOT ALLOWED. FDR did all this for political reasons the American people would never have chosen a disabled man to lead them. This is a fact. Well one senator for example that outshined burnie sanders was Elizabeth Warren she had done more than bernie in just over two years than Sanders did in the 19 years he served in Congress before she had arrived. Shouldnt we look at extreme examples? North Korea is a very dangerous country after all. We cant just ignore them. I'm not saying we should add a larger military budget but we definitely shouldn't lower it. We need the equipment we have to protect ourselfs from countries like North Korea who want to destroy us! Also Bernie Sanders may say that but so did Obama and look what hes done. Raising the minimum wage wont boost the economy it will just cause inflation. Also it is his choice but it still to a lot of people a bad choice. Also the abortion was an example of how just because some people think something is totally except able (like bernie's hair) doesn't mean it is right

Well, you could have tried to argue how money and private property enslaves us, rather than just claiming it does(claims need reason/logic or facts to back it up). Perhaps the character limit you set on this debate made it so that you couldn't really argue for it properly, but I think there was sufficient room for a reason or two. If you provided reasons formoney and private property enslaving us, I may have agreed with you and conceded the debate. It would certainly be easier to convince a socialist to turn communist than a capitalist to turn communist. We could make a debate specifically on how money and private property enslave us, if you want. I would be up for that. If the claim is "Money and private property enslave us" you would take the pro position and I would take the con position. Feel free to challenge me again if you think you have good reasons for believing money and property enslave us.

Okay, since this is the final round, it is mostly for rebuttals and any last proofs to support your position. President Barack Obama is not a Socialist. We haven't heard Obama saying, "Let the Federal Government nationalize Best Buy and the rest of private America!" Obama and the Democratic Party is still incorporating Capitalist, albeit slightly left wing policies. These policies are not to massively redistribute the wealth, to tax the rich of all they earn, to nationalize all private property, and to have collective farming. I looked and found the ten planks of Communism: 1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3) Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8) Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. 10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production. Now, America has A CAPITALIST MIXED ECONOMY, which I said earlier in Round 2 is: An economic system that allows the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises. Obama has not been a foe of Corporate America. The Stimulus Program resulted in raising Corporate Profits to record highs, and Obama has put many Corporate officials in Government offices to help stimulate economic growth by having Smart Government working with Private America to have the best outcome of all, because, as President Lincoln said "A house divided cannot stand," and having people say "Government is the cause of problems" is taking out a factor that can help improve our nation. Obama has instituted less new regulations than President Bush up to this point in the presidency. Plus, Obama's regulations have cost less than other Republican presidents', about $8 billion compared to Reagan's 1988 $16 billion. Also, to help wrap this up: - Obama has been supportive of Capitalist America, and liberals such as him are supporters of Private Property rights and Capitalism - Obama has called for a tax of 39.6% on the wealthy (Clinton era levels), not much if you consider how a Progressive tax helps society when implemented the right way - The estate tax does not "eliminate all inheritance" but allows rich inheritors to need to work some to make the nation more progressive and equal, and prevents us from fully relying on our parents for money - Obama hasn't called for ending private property rights, liberals and him support individual rights. - The Federal Reserve maintains the stability of the financial system of private America and is needed to prevent frequent recessions/depressions that occurred before the Fed's creation, helps maintain private banks by setting interest rates/ Fractional Reserve Banking - The Federal Gov't does regulate environmental protection, this is the most I can think of - Unions among workers are voluntary - The government has not interfered with this point at all - We have banned child labor, and have free education. However, private charter schools exist, and Obama supports them as well to maintain healthy competition in education As you can see by the points, our nation has not become Socialist. We have a Capitalist Mixed Economy, where both the public and private sectors work together in different ways, but the private sector has more influence in the U.S. economy (Government has only 20-25% of total spending). Obama has not supported Socialism, will not call himself a Socialist, Socialists say he is not a Socialist (why abandon a potential ally? I rest my case). Obama is a Capitalist Mixed Economy supporter, the system that promotes overall a market economy with necessary government intervention. Liberals and Obama support Capitalism with necessary government intervention to maintain the law. They are Democratic Capitalists. Now, Socialists say, "Let's abandon Private America for good," but we don't see anybody doing this (besides real Socialists such as Brian Moore). Lastly, why would Obama put Corporate executives in power in the government if he "was a Socialist", who would eventually eliminate private business??!? http://www.education.com... http://thinkprogress.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ontheissues.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.huppi.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...

What I am saying is the redistribution of wealth is tantamount to building a fairer society. Without going into my political and economic aspirations, the system is broken and the already wealthy are exploiting everyone below them creating an ever increasing inequality gap by doing the very thing your proposing we all should do. I have visions of a Dickensian style Distopian future were we all keep what we earn whilst the world around us falls into a decay of broken health services, street sweepers rusting in a ditch, and orphaned children roaming the streets in search of food all because you kept what you earned and did not give some to someone else. We all have to pay our way to maintain society. We all have to work together. Call it an all inclusive ticket to cohesion. It does not necessarily mean more government, although, if governments were what they are supposed to be and that is our servants and not try to be our rulers then i"m sure more government would be fine. Actually the more people with power would mean the power is not centralized like it is now, making it much less corrupting. Why should the private sector grow to give more money to the government if we should all keep what we get? No more government jobs will create more jobs, i don"t see which social and economic structures are at risk. Can you elaborate? More government in the conventional way does equal less freedom, i agree completely, however, imagine a world in which we were all part of the government, all with equal say in how the country should be run, now wouldn"t that be better?

No worries on the time as you were within the limits. Now on to the debate... I assume that this (your statement in the abortion debate that brought about my debate) is all that is required to justify the goodwill portion of the argument: "I'd much rather charge everyone to make sure people get the care they need than depend on people's goodwill. And for that matter, in hard times when people need help most, wouldn't people stop donating in order to keep their own families afloat? And wouldn't that essentially strand the poor?" You are quite correct that no one will punish you for not donating to the Salvation Army. However, why are you positing that statement as being inherently undesirable? Is it morally righteous to punish someone for doing as they please with money they earn? When did the welfare of the poor become the obligation of those with wealth? There is a fine line separation here between the natural instinct of charity (which is founded on individual choice) and that of an obligation? "What makes you so sure that the only reason people don't donate to charity is because of taxes?" I hardly implied that as the sole rationale. I merely pointed out that when you remove a certain portion of wealth from an individual, they will have to make choices on how to use that, now reduced, wealth. As such, to expect the same level of charity from the same individual who now has less wealth is, I think obviously, ridiculous. "New Orleans is still literally rotting, and people need money almost as much as they did right after the hurricane. However, no one donates any more, because we've essentially forgotten about it." I would hardly attest the state of New Orleans to the private charity of Americans, but rather to the incompetence of their government. The same fools that did not maintain levees in a city below sea level were placed in charge of its reconstruction. Did you expect a better result? "Again, people in power may not like to help people, but they are legally obligated to." A legal obligation to do something is hardly a moral justification. "And since when is helping the poor not ‘public good', anyway? Besides, a lot of the things you want to get rid of do benefit you anyway. Social security? Medicare?" A public good is defined as the marginal cost equaling zero, therefore the price is zero. You can hardly place welfare or any other "help to the poor" as a public good precisely because the addition of one more poor person increases the cost by a nonzero amount. On Social Security, there is a question as to whether or not it will actually be financially viable when I retire (entirely dependent on how the economy performs into the unforeseeable future)and Medicare is in a questionable position given the rising cost of health care despite (most likely because of) the growing interference of the government over the last 35 years. " "If those families will not provide charity because of their financial situation, how does that imply taking their money would be better? Taking the money they cannot afford to give would make the situation much worse." Simple. Taxes are levied on everyone.If you get rid of taxes, then only the people who want to donate will. Therefore, less people will be giving money to the poor." No, it is not that simple because you simply dodged the issue. If you tax the same person who cannot afford to give charity because of their financial situation then you will do them harm. Besides, your line of reasoning does not imply that less money will be given in charity. If, for the only reason, that every time the government has lowered taxes they have received more revenue (there is obviously a point at which this will no longer be true, but for the tax cuts of the 20th century this holds true). "Not to mention the fact that you are also taxing the rich, and regardless of the financial situation of the country there are always rich people to be taxed. Even during the great depression, there was a booming upper class." No, just read about the Wiemar Republic and you can come across a financial situation that destroyed the rich and poor alike. Also, the "booming" upper class is a farce. The wealth of the country dropped considerably during the Great Depression. Those who were wealthy before the Great Depression (who were out of the stock market by the crash, and had subsequently protected there wealth in certain banks or commodities) maintained there "growing" wealth largely because of the great deflation experienced at that time due to certain Federal Reserve policies. "So, you people seem to have a lot of problems with taxing individuals. But couldn't you lower taxes on individuals and raise them on corporations, who, at the moment, give the country practically nothing? What do you have against that?" I have a problem with the income tax, given the self incrimination it requires. Besides, there are taxes you can raise that do not require the ridiculous tax code we currently have, but all this is off topic. "For that matter, without the government organizing things, how are you going to spend those donations? The government, if nothing else, keeps things well organized. If you created groups to sort out donations and give them to the right people you'd need a lot of volunteers. And people tend to have lives, so you're likely not going to get that many people who want to work for free." For one, the problem of organization of charity has been solved already...that should be obvious as there already exist many private charities (and they have existed for quite some time). The government is hardly a model of efficiency. In fact, that is the main reason to keep the government out of anything that can be handled by market forces. If anything, the government effectively organizes inefficiency. The Salvation Army seems to have a lot of volunteers, and you don't actually need volunteers as Goodwill and Arc Thrift Stores demonstrate everyday. "And here's my favorite point. In how many situations have these libertarian ideals worked? How many countries out there have implemented this successfully? Most of the other developed countries out there are downright socialist compared to us. I mean, libertarian ideas work great in theory, but hey, so did communism." Wow! I am really disappointed. The Constitution is practically a model of a libertarian government. It worked quite well, for those it applied to, until people of your ideological bent gained power. I would safely bet everything I have that if we were to follow the original interpretation (now that we have established the equal rights of all individuals) that our country would be in an enviable position compared to now. The fact remains that liberty is the exception and not the rule to human existence. This is hardly a damnation of its efficacy. By the way, communism was never a great theoretical idea. Marx completely mistook where valuation comes from and so founded much of his theory on a fallacy.

I agree with your definitions. Mine were definitely not carefully thought through. Although I fail to see how they are arbitrary or biased, they do appear to be inaccurate, so I submit to the definitions you have provided. Let's start with some statistics. Democratic socialist/social democratic welfare states such as Denmark, Norway, Canada, and Sweden have constant successes relating to economic/quality of life issues. Norway has the highest living standard in the world, graduated using the Human Development Index. In fourth place is Denmark, with a HDI of 0.923. Denmark is the happiest country in the world, closely followed by four other democratic socialist/quazi-socialist countries. Canada, Norway and Sweden are all in the top ten countries ranked by life expectancy. Countries such as these are obviously some of the most successful in the world. It's because of socially democratic policies that protect equal opportunity so that all people have an equal chance of succeeding. The private sector has failed us by allowing corporate greed and carelessness to come before the needs of the people. Take Martin Shkreli, for example, the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals. Overnight, he raised the price of a single pill used to combat HIV/AIDS from $13.50 to $750. Because he had a monopoly on the drug, he knowingly and willingly withheld the drug from people dying of AIDS who could not afford to pay $750 per pill. This is just plain wrong, and this is why we need socialized healthcare and college tuition, following the policies of the aforementioned countries. Eagerly awaiting your response!

I accept the definition for Socialism that is presented by my opponent. I also thank my opponent for clarification of the " If he is than America is a socialist society." statement. Due to the fact that my opponent offered no contentions or attacks I will proceed to present my own case. In order to properly debate and discuss this topic, two things must be realized. First, many Americans do not believe in or fully understand Socialism. This causes either disapproval or fear of a Socialist. It is for this reason that no politician will admit openly that they are a Socialist. Secondly, we must realize that the only way to properly discuss and conclude that President Obama is, in fact, a Socialist is to examine his past voting choices and his previous statements. With these two realizations in mind I will now move on to my reasoning. Contention 1: Obama's own statements. I would like to present various statements made by President Obama and analyze why they define him as a Socialist. Subpoint A: Obama, a Democrat from Illinois, said Bush's political philosophy consists of giving tax breaks and encouraging "everyone to go buy your own health care, your own retirement and security, your own child care, your own schools, your own private security forces, your own roads, your own levees. "It's called the ownership society. In our past there has been another name for it; it's called social Darwinism. Every man or woman for him or herself," he said. "We know that government can't solve all our problems, and we don't want it to. "But we also know that there are some things we can't do on our own. There are some things we do better together. "We have an individual responsibility but we also have a collective responsibility to each other," he said. [1] These statements obviously define President Obama as a Socialist. He states, in a negative light, the policies of his opponent, President Bush. However these policies are the consistent with those of a true Capitalist. He then goes on to compare the Capitalist policies to Social Darwinism; a concept that is often looked down upon. Finally he goes on to state that we have collective responsibilities to each other and that there are some things that we do better as a whole people. These statements are obviously in line with Socialist values. Subpoint B: It's because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you'll play in writing the next great chapter in America's story. [2] As the major goals of Socialism are the furthering of the community as a whole; these statements obviously display a Socialistic viewpoint. He speaks of the need for collective salvation over individual salvation; as well the need to "hitch your wagon" to something bigger than yourself. These statements obviously display a very socialistic viewpoint in President Obama. Contention 2: Obama's health care policies. 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 during a campaign against socialized health care programs. This applies to the health care programs of Obama. In theory, his programs will force companies to give health insurance to all people. This is blatantly Socialistic. It will lead to eventual financial loss by the insurance companies because they will have to support people that they normally wouldn't have accepted because of the increased risk. So, the health care programs of Obama will take from the wealthy (insurance companies) and give to the poor (those who can't afford health insurance). We must not look at the morality of this but instead how it adheres to the ideals of Socialism. These health care programs obviously focus on the good of the community as a whole versus the ability of Capitalism or the individual to succeed; thus making the programs socialistic. In conclusion, it is statements and policies like these that openly display that President Obama is a Socialist. We must look to these statements and policies said and created by the president as evidence of his obvious socialistic views. I look forward to the response of my opponent. 1:http://www2.ljworld.com... 2: http://www.wfsb.com...


Question: Should Social Security be Transformed into a Private System?

Privatization of social security would lead to an increase in the funds available to retirees. Private accounts would offer a higher rate of return on investments, giving account holders control over their investment decisions. This doesn't imply that Social Security funds for those under 55 would be directed to Wall Street; it could be left to individual discretion, potentially including government funds. However, given the government's record of mismanagement and a $14 trillion deficit, it's unlikely that many would choose this option. As Andrew Roth argues, "Democrats will claim that supporters of personal accounts will expose people's retirement plans to the stock market's volatility, but this is just scaremongering. Personal accounts would be voluntary. If you prefer the current system, you can stay, despite its decreasingly low returns as Social Security approaches bankruptcy. But if you want your money protected from politicians and the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets as politicians do for their retirement plans, you should have that choice." Privatization would aid the economically marginalized in two ways: by ending the harm social security currently causes and by making these groups among the biggest beneficiaries. Privatization would increase individual liberty, allowing all Americans to participate in the economy through investments, reducing the division of labor and capital and restoring ownership, a cornerstone of the American dream. Privatized accounts would be transferable within families, unlike current Social Security accounts. These accounts would be personal assets, similar to a house or a 401k account, that could be passed on to heirs upon death. This would make privatization a progressive move, as the wealthy, who generally live longer than the poor, would receive a higher total of Social Security payments over their lifetimes, which could be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on. Privatization increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid for and are entitled to, ultimately increasing the amount of money that marginalized retirees receive and giving all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments. [Sources: 1. Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. 2. Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth. 21 September 2010.]

I see your point about government and healthcare - a more capitalist system would have allowed lower costs, and we could hypothetically not be in this mess. So you propose that we lower the bar for licensing, protect doctors more from lawsuits, and decrease gov't regulation to lower costs. I could possibly consider going along with this, but I don't know if the rest of the country would - an interesting subject for new debate. I see now what Republicans mean by "destroying the best healthcare system in the world". Kind of like that flashy german car you were talking about, they don't want to see the changes you are proposing take effect. Possibly, the changes you are proposing WOULD take effect if we did switch over to a socialized medical system. They would be forced to. Is this what I am to assume Republicans mean by universal healthcare ruining our great healthcare system? The best one in the world, that's so good that more and more people can't even afford to use it? So how do we pay for the obvious rises in health care costs that would be accrued to actually take care of the physical health of our citizens? I would hope that anyone would put basic healthcare ahead of most other things... how about ditching some of those useless liberal policies you were talking about? Or wait, I've got an even better idea! You know those wars we are fighting, against the Islamists and the potheads? I bet we could save a lot of money by cutting THOSE programs to help save the lives of our citizens! Let's see here... 50 Billion dollars per year for the war on drugs... The WoD doesn't due a scrap of good for anyone, and the money we spend on imprisoning all the non-violent drug offenders will save us even more! Let's see here, it costs as much as a harvard college education per year to keep each drug offender in prison. We have more people in jail, percentage-wise and absolute number-wise than any other country, so we probably have a few people to spare. - 249,400 drug offenders in federal prisons(2006) - 93,751 drug offenders in state prisons(2006) - $19,002 per year for each one - It costs over 6 and a half billion dollars to keep drug offenders in prisons each year, and this does not take into account jails at all. The war on terror, which also isn't doing anybody any good, costs 260 billion per year. With 317 Billion dollars of extra revenue each year, we ought to be able to keep our health care system working just fine. And you said the liberal policies were ridiculous! Handsoff, you kidder! You knew all along that these twisted neoconservative policies are REALLY the ones crippling us financially and ethically! While you're considering answering the questions I posed to you in round 2, consider 1 more question as well: What are the wacky liberal policies you would rather get rid of to pay for a better health care system?

http://www.youtube.com...#! I accept my opponent's debate and wish him luck! I am against universal healthcare. Argument Control If the United States put into effect a universal healthcare system then they would need a seperate government agency to run it. Think about America today. Name one department that runs efficiently. Social Security Administration? Nope! Department of Energy? Nope! I could go on and on. Face it, if the government even tried to run a healthcare system it would be terrible. If something is simple leave it be! If it's not broken don't fix it! Look at this statement from one of my sources: Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system [1]? Private businesses do far better when dealing with healthcare. If they didn't do well then they'd be out of business! If the government ran the healthcare system then they could ration equipment, drugs, and services. Anything could possibly get your healthcare rationed. Lifestyle, age, political ideaology, or how whoever's in power feels could change your healthcare. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues [1]. For example, an elderly man could receive less healthcare than a man in his mid 30s. Elderly people might not be able to get the treatment they need to stay alive. What if you were a Republican in a Democratic government? Would they deny you healthcare services because of your party affiliation? Liver disease from alcoholism, diabetes from obesity, lung cancer from smoking; Would the government help you or tell you to change your lifestyle? Cost They say that medical costs have risen greatly. Of course they have. There are more advances in the medical field and way more technology to pay for. Cars, computers, houses, everything has gone up in price! Should we make them all apart of the government? Many things we buy today have increased in cost because of the addition of new technology, but allowing the government to intervene so they can supposedly wave their hand and reduce the price is more than wishful thinking, its unrealistic and its impossible to speculate the effect it would have on the nation. People think "free healthcare" is great because it has the word "free" in it. Nothing in the world is free. The people of the U.S would have to pay a great deal of taxes in order to support the government's healthcare. The government has to pay for the healthcare somehow. Like I said, NOTHING is free. So where would they get the money for this? Of course! The American taxpayers! Would it be worth the cutting of multiple funded programs in order to support our universal healthcare? Would funding/regulatory decisions on certain drugs, treatments, research, etc. be decided based on those who give the most political support? In addition, co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Eventually there would be a great deal of patients going to the doctors for minor things. Normal people would not go to the doctors for a headace, a cold, or some aches and pains. Why is this? Because there is money involved for every doctor visit. If it's free then why not go? Right? In this case, doctors would spend time on a headache patient who had an appointment sooner than a patient who is in dire need of assistance. Also, healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc via greater taxes. Universal health care would spread the cost of it throughout the nation. Healthy people would be paying the same as unhealthy citizens. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't? Personal Freedom If the government runs the healthcare then what's stopping them from taxing cigarettes, fast food, and other items that jeopardize people's health? With government-paid health care, any risky or unhealthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. People who enjoy a nice alcoholic beverage or a smoke will no longer be able to afford it. Therefore, those businesses would eventually crumble. Personal freedoms would be erased. The government could control what you eat, drink, and do. In conslusion, a government run healthcare system would ruin our country. Government would run your daily life and tell you how to live your life. Your freedom to eat, drink, or smoke will no longer be there. The cost would be immense as seen by my video. How can a government with TRILLIONS of dollars in debt possibly run universal healthcare efficiently? Thank you and thanks to 16kadams for the video! Sources [1] http://www.balancedpolitics.org... [2] http://healthcare.procon.org... [3] http://www.clarksvilleonline.com...

Wikipedia defines capitalism as "an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy." Capitalism is efficient in the sense that it achieves its goal: those who privatize trade and industry make money, and they make a lot of money from it. If making money is your only worry, capitalism is good--but making money should not be the government's biggest concern. The biggest concern of the government should be providing for its people, which capitalism doesn't have room for. In 2012, 15% of people in America (46.5 million) were in poverty. 14.5% of people (49 million) didn't have enough to eat. Of course our capitalist country offers food stamps, but that's hardly enough to live off of. $4.50 a day is all food stamps offer, and that's barely enough to buy a meal at McDonald's much less buy something nutritious. In a socialist government, there is cooperative management of the economy, meaning everyone owns and everyone gets money out of it as opposed to capitalism, where (nearly) everyone works and if they're lucky they'll make enough to support their family. It's give and take, but it's extremely slighted to those who are already rich.

Response to C1:It seems to me that you are quoting Professors, and then summarizing their views in a few short sentence after doing so. It is your job to be providing reasoning, not quotes.The United States of America has a Constitution, by which everyone with the boundaries of the US s forced to abide. Our Constitution lists the specific job of the legislative branch of government, and then adds in an amendment that anything not specifically listed as a job of the national government is a ob for the states; with the consent of the people.[1] (http://www.archives.gov...) (Article I, Section 8)[2] (http://www.archives.gov...) (Amendment X)Healthcare/medical aid is not listed anywhere as a job for the federal government. Because our Constitution prohibits the federal government from doing anything it is no explicitly permitted to do, the federal government cannot provide healthcare.Response to C2:Your whole argument is that federal healthcare could do better than completely privatized or state-run systems, because other countries that are better than us use a federal system. I would like to point out that our current system is heavily flawed, due to government regulations on jobs; specifically doctors. If doctors could be judged by consumers, instead of his behind the government's overbearing wall, then healthcare would be cheaper, and also more reliable.Do you realize how small an amount $6500 is? That will barely cover a mostly healthy person for a year. Cancer patients would have no hope. With that little money, people would be forced to provide self care, only visiting the doctor when death is near-certain. You expect universal healthcare to solve all problems. What about the people who smoke? They are still killing themselves; healthcare would not fix the root cause. What about people who go around having sex all the time? We would be paying for their birth-control, and then still having to watch as STDs increased in number. What about the people who eat McDonald’s or fried food everyday? We are still having to pay for their bypasses. Giving people universal healthcare will not magically fix their problems which make them unhealthy, it will only discourage being healthy. If I can eat junk food and go have sex all the time, and know that everyone else is going to pay for my medical are, then by all means (religion aside) I would go do it!Finally for this section, you said that giving people universal healthcare will stop bankruptcy. Really? People still have to pay for their healthcare one way or another. If one person isn't paying, then another one has to pick up the slack. If someone is out of work, then they still cannot pay for their healthcare, the will just get it for free. Eventually, the wealthier and healthier people will quit paying into the system, because they will be supporting everyone else.Response to C3:Again, all you are doing is quoting Professors. his is rather irritating, as I am not debating with them, but with you."You" say that people must be healthy in order to enjoy their rights, because being unhealthy requires dependency on others. How will receiving healthcare from the government make you any less dependent on a hospital doctor than private insurance? Not only are you dependent on any doctors, you are also dependent on the government, as well as every single other citizen! If you get sick, then you are sick. Making healthcare universal will not just magically fix that. The only thing universal healthcare would do is provide a guaranteed source of payment for the medical bills, to an extent.It is then stated that people who get universal healthcare will be more inclined to work harder. How does that work? If I say that you will get something no matter how hard you work, then you won't work very hard, if at all.You then say that there will be an even mix of well and ill people n the "pool." Again, how does that work? Can you predict how many people will get sick, and what their disease will be? Medicines and treatments can cost from a few dollars to a few hundred thousand dollars. Money would have to be in abundance to allow for the care of anyone with cancer, or anyone requiring a major surgery. You also claim that universal insurance would fix the "problem" of having to pay for insurance. People have to buy the insurance, whether it is through a private company or via taxes. Like insurance as it is currently, if you get sick, the payments (taxes) will have to go up to account for the expenses. The only difference is that everyone has to pay more because a single person gets sick.Some people naturally have stronger immune systems. They get sick less often, and therefore would require less medical care, as well as less sick days from work. Why would they keep working to pay for someone else's healthcare, when they don't get any money back?Your actual point for your entire "b" point is that "Universal healthcare would be beneficial to everyone." The only evidence you provide is, yet again, a quote. That is quite inadequate.I will not waste time in replying to point "c," because that is a purely philosophical statement, which you claim is true, because Prof. So-and-So said it. If you wish to bring philosophy and religion into this, I would be delighted to do so, with more wide-known sources than your professors.Cross-Examination:Do you agree with Obamacare?Do you agree with Socialism?Do you agree with Communism (Totalitarian)?Do you agree with Social Democracy?Do you agree with a free-market economic system?Do you believe that philosophy/religion should be brought into politics?Do you agree with the US Constitution?How would universal healthcare be paid for?Would universal healthcare be provided in an "account" for each individual, or would it be distributed from a pool to those who had need?For your next argument, please formulate some real points, instead of quoting and agreeing with others. As the Pro, it is your job to prove that the US should offer federal universal healthcare. If you would like to use statistics, please find some that are not contained within a quote, and please use sources for citations.Thanks.

I will now list my opponent's arguments and show where they fall short either logically or empirically. 20% of Americans believe Socialism is better than Capitalism. My opponent claims that based on this marginal statistic, the majority of Americans want a change to Capitalism. However my opponent's other statistic which says that 53% of Americans favor Capitalism over Socialism leads us to the exact opposite conclusion that my opponent makes. If we are to believe that we should make changes to the American economic system based on majority opinion(which I definitely do not support) the least my opponent could do is to bring some statistics that would uphold that point. Instead, if we are to follow my opponent's reasoning, capitalism should stay the economic system of the United States. 36% of Americans view Socialism positively. I would like for my opponent to elucidate on this point a little more. Namely what they mean by positively. In any case, even if this is true, this is not much of a reason to change economic systems, seeing as even if my opponent is to argue from the majority, it would still support my case and negate my opponent's. My opponent then shows statistics on world hunger and starving and shows how many people die every year of hunger in the United States. I truly do feel empathy for these unfortunate souls, though my opponent then goes on to take a quote of mine completely out of context. He writes: //"I quote my opponent "one can see from the evidence that capitalistic societies (United States) typically have higher standards of living" 14 million children going hungry, Thousands dying every day is a better standard of living?"// Here my opponent cuts out the part of the quote that would actually make it make sense. I actually wrote: //"Capitalism is at the base, built on egoistic principles, but it's consequences are generally much more humanitarian than that of socialism's."// I wrote that the consequences of capitalistic systems are generally more humanitarian than the consequences of socialist systems that have been put into place(i.e.-Soviet Style Communism in which 20-66 million people died[1]) I was not saying that it is humanitarian for 14 million children to go hungry, I was saying that capitalism is more humanitarian when compared to historical examples of socialism. I then asked my opponent for evidence that socialism would be more humanitarian than capitalism. He replied with little more theoretical visions of a utopian and completely egalitarian society. Anyone can argue that establishing X as a system of economics would necessarily lead to Y, but that does not count as evidence for that claim. This is my opponent's reply to my question in full: //"Feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, ending inequality and class divisions, democratic planning of the economy, establishing international peace and unity, and all the changes that socialism would bring describes the word humanitarian, [definition] /committed to improving the lives of other people."// I ask again, where is the evidence that socialism would do what my opponent claims it would, when all historical examples of socialism in practice point to the opposite conclusion? I then asked my opponent how charity as the building block of an economic system would be better than selfishness as the building block of an economic system. He responded, not with an answer, but with a made up scenario about how bad capitalism is. Again though, he did not show how socialism was any better. I will give him the last round to bring up some evidence. My opponent has certainly not upheld his BOP in this debate, I would go further into his arguments but I only have about 15 minutes before my time runs out. All my opponent has done so far in this debate is talk about how bad capitalism is, without showing in any way why socialism is better. Vote Con. [1]http://necrometrics.com...

They, like other Americans need to feed their families, but the money they make in their businesses goes partially to welfare. The very same system my opponent says helps keep these businesses above water. So if the money that goes into the businesses is partially be taken out to go back to those paying for the product, how is this helping the business? I don't quite understand this statement but corporations, small businesses, and individuals are required to pay taxes. They do not have the option to choose which services they would like to pay and which services they would not. As I mentioned earlier, with regard to Peter Lindert’s article, social programs increase overall consumer spending. This means that, in the case of Con’s hypothetical business, unemployed Americans are still able to be consumers; which helps that specific business during a time when it is also suffering financial difficulties. Instead of having millions of unemployed Americans receiving no income and spending no money, TANF provides them with a basic level of financial support allowing them the opportunity to purchase necessary items. Without the worker making any money, the owner of the store is basically giving their product to the consumer, seeing as how it was the store owners money that is being used to purchase his own items. I am not quite sure I understand why it is that the worker would not be making any money; if said “worker” were employed, his employer would be required to compensate him. If the “worker” is in reference to an individual on TANF, then it is simply false to equate corporate and business taxes as being on par with TANF contributions. This argument presented by Con suggests that no individual, corporation, or small business should have to contribute to any citizen's income who may in turn purchase their products or services. The compensation of military personnel, elected representatives, and other government employees would then qualify under this same broad generalization. WELFARE ECONOMICS This particular economic theory utilizes the perspectives of microeconomics, as is generally the case, it can be adopted on a macroeconomic scaled but it operates at greater efficiency at the state level. (1) Within the United States, this theory evokes a great degree of contention, welfare economics is one of many forms of wealth redistribution. The individualistic, free-market capitalist ideals that many Americans cling to, objects to this very concept; despite the empirical evidence compiled by economists indicating that greater states of overall social well-being are achieved by redistributing incomes in the economy. (1) My opponent believes that any increase in the United States GDP comes from investments in welfare programs. My opponent did not provide evidence that welfare was the cause of the increase, merely that our GDP increased while we had investments put into welfare. This is certainly not my belief or my argument, I provided context reinforced by empirical evidence. The evidence concluded that the OECD countries who suffered the greatest losses were those that did not have an adequate social “safety-net” program in place. Surely, Con is not suggesting that the European nations that adopted austerity measures would experience the same or worse economic volatility had they implemented social spending policies. If every man [...] in the United States decided [...], "Hell, I'm not going to work, I could be paid $10 bucks an hour to do nothing." Then our country would fail, [...] and I'm grateful that every night [...] that there are still men and women who work to pay for those who don't. This seems a strange statement, I will refer Con back to my statement that the United States is in the midst of a recession. Businesses were forced to, substantially, reduce expenses in order to mitigate risk; this was accomplished by a series of large-scale layoff’s within the US. There is no evidence to suggest that American’s are sitting at home saying to themselves: “Hell, I’m not going to work”. Who complain, but still pay their money to those people so they can sit at home and cheer on Obama for being their hero. Please tell me that's not wrong. Con’s statement categorizes Obama as the individual to blame for the increased costs of social benefits, though evidence I have provided refutes this believe, and that unemployed Americans are willingly unemployed. This is, again, an argument guilty of speculation, as there is no evidence to suggest that TANF recipients have no desire to find work. OBAMA’S WELFARE REFORM To contradict my opponent who argues that individuals have no intention of seeking employment because of Obama and the TANF. Firstly, under Obama’s policy, states now have the ability to seek a federal waiver requiring welfare recipients to engage in specific “work activities”, such as job training. (2) In exchange, individual states would provide “more efficient or effective means to promote employment”. Secondly, states must also submit performance measures and evaluation plans. (2) There is no subversive plot to transform the USA into communist Russia or to create a society of unemployed dependents. Obama’s reform went even further; no other American President has ever imposed lifetime limits on welfare. (2) TANF recipients can receive financial assistance for no longer, than 5 years, and after 2 years on TANF, the legal guardian in the household must be engaged in work activities. (2) The reform also required that states ensure that 50% of all families receiving financial assistance to be participating in work activities. $1 TRILLION FOR THE TANF – FACT OR FICTION The article, in question, was purposely ambiguous concerning the “federal means-tested welfare programs”, which was comprised of 83 different federal programs. (3) 52% of the $1 trillion is related to medical assistance (Medicaid etc.), 9% related to food aid (WIC, TEFAP), 6.5% housing, energy, and utilities assistance (LIHEAP); 2.5% to child development and child care (CCDBG), 1.1% to community development (CDBG), and 5% towards targeted education spending for low-income persons and communities. (4) 76% of the stated $1 trillion dollars has absolutely no funding to the TANF, of the remaining 24%; 21.5% was split between SSI, EITC, ACTC, and finally TANF. The remaining 2.5% was also split, between social services (SSBG, TANF, and CSBG) and jobs and job training (WIA, WIAOGY, TANF, Job Corps). (4) As we can see the US government does not spend anywhere near $1 trillion on welfare, in fact, during the last 15 years the federal government and states have only spent $406 billion on the TANF program. (2) My opponent provided no evidence that there is only a fraction of the population guilty of fraud. Since the government is not efficient at stopping those people from doing it before they have done some real damage […] On Con’s first charge, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to prove that welfare fraud exists and is occurring to the extent that the United States will suffer some noticeable degree of economic downturn. Con’s second argument is in reference to an article on a website that primarily handles internet security, specifically e-mail spam. In which only four examples of welfare fraud were provided, all of which took place between 1972 and 1981. This is not adequate proof to suggest that welfare fraud is a prevalent, legitimate, and widespread issue. Con has provided several arguments littered with bare assertions, none of which were able to withstand scrutiny. There has been nothing presented to suggest that welfare is detrimental to the US. (1): http://www.investopedia.com... (2): http://factcheck.org...(3): http://dailycaller.com... (4): Rector, Robert. Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare.pdf

For each point I'm going to summarise why my opponent has not met her burden of proof - to show conclusively that a welfare state (remember, that is the state taking primary responsibility for stuff like healthcare and education) does more harm than good. Lower prices Means Better Welfare I've already told you the incentive govts have to keep prices low - getting elected. Automobile insurance is different from welfare in that it costs the rich (with rich cars) more than the poor (with poor cars). Social security must be equal for every person because every person has the same value (or else that would be discrimination), so there must be an equal cost also. Sweden's welfare has not had huge costs - indeed, getting rid of privatization directly led to a huge growth boost and sudden reversal in their government books [1]. Note how my source is an economist and yours are a biochemist and a medical doctor. They point to a single example of how it did badly in the early-mid 1990s, but then (as my source explains) so was the rest of Europe. Sweden was actually doing well compared to its neighbours. In New Zealand, we tried to reduce the deficit by the means of privatization, not robbing people as my opponent supposes. I didn't prove privatization didn't work, but your burden of proof was first to show that it did. "then there is no reason to fire them" unless it becomes more profitable to put them on welfare. It's a win-win for the rich; profits can be perfectly optimised to flow to their pockets. State Welfare Drives out the Businesses If things only happen gradually, there is no need for an immediate fix and we can wait until election time. Obviously politicians can lie, but it really only works once or twice before people lose confidence in them. When I say "additional service," I do not mean to preclude "higher-quality service. " Quality of service may be added to the government package as can anything else. The insurer will be foolish, however, not to claim from the government on your behalf a reimbursement that they're freely entitled to. Private firms do need as many customers as possible. To survive a private firm must make long-run above-average returns. This necessitates either increasing the size of the market or constantly gaining market share. Either way the firm is always grasping for more customers to meet the demands of the shareholders. Duty of State The problem with your elaborate system is that it won't work for all but the very small countries, even if we put aside the inefficiency of privatization and the fact buy-in won't be as amazing as you suppose. Charities do not have the infrastructure to reach even all the people in America below the poverty line, let alone the 15% of China that lives at this level, let alone pretty much the entire continent of Africa. Furthermore, very few are willing to give charity to people who they have no established contract with. Charities are already stretched today, and that's with many countries being welfare states. Just imagine how much more work they'd have to do, reaching out to the poor of the whole world. I say this quite earnestly - I work for an NGO (World Vision) and it isn't easy. Voter power is more equal than the private system or charities, where the public has no power whatsoever. My opponent gives a good model of a contract, but - Who shall enforce it if it goes bad? I simply name the enforcer the "executive. " Who shall judge my guilt? I simply name the judge the "judiciary. " Who shall say what defines a contract? I simply name the definer the "legislature. " Of course you could change the rules, but the state is not presently deviating from its role of protecting existing liberties. That's all I need to prove. Poor Quality Already refuted my opponent's sole counter-example. Take note of my opponent's lack of rebuttal on this point. The motion falls. Vote Con. Sources1 - . http://www.iticu.edu.tr...

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...

My opponents argument seems to be centereed around privitizing the U.S. postal service. This would be disatrous and would not work. This would not work for many reasons. "I would say two things to this. The first is that the competition between companies to compete for customers would keep the price down. Second I would propose that perhaps the U.S. government could put a price limit to keep this from happening. One or both of these null the quoted point." This would not happen. The buisnesses would problably agree on a price that is higher than the one we currently have then they would keep it in that general area. Another reason that the price would go up is that the buisness would need to make a proft. "To this I would say that the U.S. government could still pose laws and even insure it. Although I would think that private companies could still insure the goods perhaps even better than the government because of competition." This is absolutly bogus. Rather than the quality of the U.S. postal service that we currently have, if privitized the quality would go down for a number of reasons. 1)the buisnessees would have to cover costs by cutting down on quality. 2)the system would not be held up by government spending. Now, my opponent has pointed out how the U.S. poistal service consumes more money than it returns. This is true. But it also provides a quality that would not be had if this whole thing where privitized. Also, what would happen to all the current U.S. postal employees? They would be fired which would add to an already troubled economy. What would happen to the buildings and the trucks and the tools? They would rot away into nothing. The moeny we already put into them would be wasted. I will offer a final reason as to why we should keep the U.S. postal service. Interaction with other countries. Our postal service official delivers and recieves mail from other countries. The postal service is so entertwined with our interactions with other countries that to privitize it would be repugnant because it would require foriwghn countires to use a privite buisness rather than government buisness. In conclusion. The U.S. postal service should nto be shut down. It should still stand as an effieiecnt system and as a service to the people of the United States of America.

Well, I think the burden of proof lies with you to show that money, and private property enslaves us. There's not much to respond to here until I see a good reason to believe these things are enslaving us.