Wait... are you fiating the Fed to print money?
Hahaha. No. Joshtinian's point was that if you don't have the money, you can't spend it. But as I was pointing out, we have
spent money "we didn't have," via printing, so the argument fails the test of precedent.
2. Reality check: Did I seriously just read a post that said they would print the money to do their plan?
Nope. Read it again.
Taxes and borrowing. Or Printing. Which is just a subtle way of taxing. I'm not sure why that was important. That wasn't my point.
It probably wasn't your
point. It was my
point, showing that we have
spent money "we didn't have" in the past. Which means your argument that you can't is false.
Did you listen to what you just said? Irresponsibility (i.e. licentiousness) has never and will never be a good (or even neutral) thing. That is inherent to its nature. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't "Irresponsible." It would be "Responsible."
So again, can you give me an impact?
Yes, "Using money you don't have" is by definition unwise, irrational, and irresponsible. Listing arguments in what should be their order of importance:
Then we better stop paying your grandma's social security check, huh? We better stop funding the military and put all of those men and women out of jobs, huh? We better kill the nuclear weapons program, huh?
And yet, the conservatives spend on. (I say "conservatives" because they are usually the people making such a big deal about the debt and spending money)
Impact: the government oversteps its bounds. This not only sets precedent for the future, but also results in permanent gain of governmental power (b/c gov't never retracts), leading to a loss of freedom for the governed.
Again, this is non-unique. And since you can't quantify the non-unique DA, or provide a threshold for it, it's hardly a winning strategy unless you have some kind of pre-disposed bias for it (like we do here).
B. Stealing from people. Printing more money decreases the purchasing power of the money the people have, and increase the money held by the government. It is a sneaky form of taxation and thus unfair to the public.
Who said I print money?
2. Until the last 50 years or so, Americans were honest, realistic, and moral enough to realize what a bad thing debt is and attempted to pay it off. George Washington's farewell address gave his sage advice to the nation going onward. Among other things, he stated: "cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible...avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt."
Um, no? We've been in debt since the founding of the nation. Which means we've been "immoral" the whole time.
A. If you keep spending more money than you collect/make, then you will never be able to pay it back.
I liked Coach Carter's point here. So what?
B. For this reason "the borrower is the lender's slave"*
C. You must cut down future spending even further to afford current debt.
1. The Brink is there. Actually, I have two.
What followed wasn't a brink. The brink is what makes the Aff plan trigger the impact, but not the squo.
The squo has either 1) already triggered the impact (non-unique), or 2) No one knows where the brink is (no threshold; no impact)
2. Impact: Societal Collapse. Anarchy. Restructuring into a totalitarian state without individual rights. We seem to following the path of the Weimar Republic.
Um. I hardly think that spending a couple hundred billion of "money we don't have" is going to trigger anarchy after Reagan's massive debt increase, Bush's massive debt increase, and now Obama's massive debt increase. Non-unique, and no impact from previous "links."
It's a K. I'm attacking the principle behind the entire process. I'm attacking the precedent it sets and the worldview it promotes. I'm not attacking the impact of every minuscule implementation of this abominable (yah, I found a strong enough word) worldview. In fact, that's what I'm doing in the next 2 quotes:
Well, like Nate said, this is an entirely different argument than it was. Reference the OP. That was talking about solvency.
Additionally, if you were to run the K, I'd simply point out that there's no change even if we were to buy your K. That's how the world operates, and even a protest in-round isn't going to change anything. Again, I'm not making
my plan do this, it's the inherent nature of the budgetary process that I don't have the authority to alter.
You're twisting/ignoring the argument presented in the rest of my last post to come to that conclusion based on only these two sentences.
No, I'm not. You assume that all
spending is irresponsible. You don't even take into account the benefits of said spending in your protest, which I would label "irresponsible," in and of itself.
3. Net-benefits has unfortunately been excluded...who cares if we print the money to save lives and critical infrastructure...put down the dough to build the cyber-force and protect the nation from mass chaos...print some money or devaluate the entire global market????
Don't really want to do a line by line but again I just don't think funding arguments in general are winners that vast majority of the time.....if my option is a minor argument that I think has just a little merit and is on point vs a funding argument I'll opt for the on point argument every time
And this. If the argument is theoretically
bankrupt (excuse the pun), then I have no interest in running it, regardless of judge bias. That's why I don't like funding arguments. That's why I don't like constitutional arguments (mostly). That's why I don't like poor T presses. :shrug: If I have to prey on judge bias to pick up a win, I don't see what's the point of me "learning" to persuade people.