1. Well, it appears that lots of people buy it.
That. doesn't. make. it. right!
Coach Carter wrote:
I'm sorry you are in a region that is really taking an unorthodox stance on funding
My argument would be more along the lines of pressing the AFF to provide a source for funding to prove that they can get it from somewhere.
The Federal budget isn't good enough? We know
they have the money for it, just like Nathan stated.
1. Do you agree w/ the principle: "The ends do not justify the means"? If you do, then you just defeated your own argument about net benefits. If you don't, well... ::drops jaw: ::slowly closes mouth w/ hand::
As a ruling principle? No. But I do believe in some cases, the ends do
justify the means.
Look at your definition of "irresponsible" "not showing or done with due care for the consequences of one's actions or attitudes; reckless"
Remember, you said spending money we don't have is "irresponsible" and that in and of itself is a bad thing. Somehow being "irresponsible" is morally reprehensible. However, to prove we aren't being "irresponsible" we have to evaluate the ends! So we do
justify the means with the ends. We have
to based on your definition!
2. BTW, printing money and going into debt lead to global economic crisis and social chaos at some point (a point which is quickly approaching).
Which is the definition of non-uniqueness and lack of threshold. Tell me: The Aff plan will save the world from an outbreak of smallpox which will kill hundreds of millions if not billions of people. Aside from human deaths, the global economy will be shattered. That will lead to more
hundreds of millions of people dying.
Not looking so good.
However, you don't want to prevent that, because the Affirmative plan might
cause a problem that we don't know will actually happen? That could (and should, according to your argument) have happened dozens of times in the past?
To me, that seems more "irresponsible."
Especially since you claim a "moral" justification for your argument....ignoring the fact that you wouldn't even support your own position if we were to cancel the im
moral military's budget.
Let me restate: Debt is unconditionally and seriously disadvantageous. Which makes it usually/generally unwise and irresponsible when not weighed very carefully against extraordinary and emergency circumstances.
Oop, oop, oop! Did you just say "when not weighed very carefully?" Are you trying to justify the means now?
The point isn't whether it's "usually" or "generally" "unwise." The issue is whether or not that's how the government actually works in its day-to-day business. Something I've pointed out several times is how the government does it!
You can't ignore that fact (well, actually you can, since you have).
I was saying I thought it reasonable for us to know the source of governmental funding just like an individual must know the source of his funds to make a particular purchase.
1) The government doesn't work like an individual.
2) Does the Affirmative need to know specifically which employees will be carrying out his plan? Which congressmen will vote for it? Which aid package won't be sent so we can secure on more kilobite of cyberspace? At what point do the specifications cease?
Delta_FC, you mentioned PAYGO. Why not just specify which program will be cut? It makes sense, and it spikes silly funding arguments. Yes, you have to do a bit of research to prove that the program you cut is a bad thing, but that's not a big deal at all.
Because we don't know
which program will be cut. We can make assumptions, and say that it's "likely" this program will be cut, but we can't know for sure.
I mean, honestly, as a high school debater, I'm not going through the US budgets just to make sure my plan will work. That's why we have fiat power (imo, but I can't think of a better reason). And again, where would the specifications cease? I've already proven the government just shifts the budget from some program in their own (in the words of Coach Carter) "very complex" way. I don't have a CPA, I hate math, and I don't have the time either (much to everyone's shock, I'm sure
Hey! I've got an idea! Why don't we just specify the funding and stop worrying about it?
Or how about people stop running lame funding arguments? That would solve the problem too!
I'd be curious to see just how many people argue funding like that. Joshtinian keeps appealing to the "majority" that I don't ever remember seeing. Coach Carter (whom I'm supposing is slightly more informed) mentioned that our club's view is "unorthodox" and it was "unfortunate" (I agree). That doesn't seem to imply a majority.
Eureka! So you're arguing that this can happen, while I'm arguing it shouldn't. Thus, our positions aren't necessarily contradictory. (Summary of the first major hunk of your post - I'm practicing my grouping.)
So why is it a voter against me?
Regardless, we're "spending money we don't have" on a program that is too large for its own good. And despite your moral argument against spending, somehow these programs are too important to a conservative for it to be cut at all!
Great! So you shouldn't have any problem giving me a list of 10-20 such programs, if your plan is really all that important.
I wouldn't mind, no, if I had a CPA, a foreign language degree in legalese (which I'm working on, I admit), and access and time to go through the Federal Budget. But the government doesn't exactly publish an easy-to-read budget. Additionally, like I stated above, we can only make speculation on which programs are "likely" to be cut, and can't give a direct answer.
Look at how the real
budgetary process works:
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a fund to be known as the ‘‘Public Health Investment Fund’’ (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Fund’’).
(A) There shall be deposited into the
(i) for fiscal year 2010, $4,600,000,000;
(ii) for fiscal year 2011, $5,600,000,000;
(iii) for fiscal year 2012, $6,900,000,000;
(iv) for fiscal year 2013, $7,800,000,000;
(v) for fiscal year 2014, $9,000,000,000;
(vi) for fiscal year 2015, $9,400,000,000;
(vii) for fiscal year 2016, $10,100,000,000;
(viii) for fiscal year 2017, $10,800,000,000;
(ix) for fiscal year 2018, $11,800,000,000; and
(x) for fiscal year 2019, $12,700,000,000.
(B) Amounts deposited into the Fund shall be derived from general revenues of the Treasury.
H.R. 4583, which extended job creation programs (and therefore would cost more) had no funding listed in the bill at all. It came, naturally, from "general revenues of the Treasury."
So this is how the government operates. This is modus operandi
, standard operating procedure. You can't get all over our backs for "role-playing" the government, and then actually filling that role.
If this is "real-world" copy, you can't K us for it.
1. There have been periods in US history where we have paid back significant portions of the debt (after the Revolutionary War and the War of Northern Aggression, for instance). That could be the alternative.
What would that alternative achieve? Nothing! After your alternative to pay back a large portion of the debt, we'd find ourselves back where we started, trillions in debt. Additionally, where do you
plan on getting the funding for your alternative?
2. It isn't a matter of spending money we don't have. That is the definition of going into debt, and sometimes inescapable. But doing so irresponsibly is not acceptable and is avoidable. That could be the alternative.
Here's my point: there's no way to determine if I'm being "responsible" or "irresponsible" unless we evaluate the ends. So we do
and have to
justify the means with the end. There's no other way to do it.
Like you said, spending isn't the problem (though I find that hard to believe, since you said "it's money we don't have") it's doing it "recklessly." I hardly think that Affirmatives would classify themselves as "reckless" when looking at their justifications (unless they're squirrels. That's not what we're talking about, though).
You honestly think that Washington (Including all administrations and legislatures for the last 20 years) intends to ever pay back $14trillion? You've got to be kidding me. Dialogue about "controlling the deficit" isn't directed at removing the debt altogether, but with slowing its rate of accumulation. It might be a start, but barely a start.
It's "a start." Weren't you the one who said we have to do things practically/practicably? You're suggesting we suddenly cuts tons of programs to massively reduce the debt? That won't achieve anything in the long run. Most of those programs you cut will be one-year funds, meaning they're back in place the year after you cut their funding. Additionally, if you honestly believe that Washington is nothing but a spender, they'll find plenty of ways to get around your artificial restriction.
An attempt at achieving a "should", even if it falls short of 100% solvency, is generally better than sticking your head in the sand and hoping the problem disappears.
I would contend that without a practical/practicable solution/alternative, you're being just as irresponsible.
BTW, you like the "non-unique" a little better than is good for you. If I remember correctly, it loses rounds... That b/c most of us just don't care!
:sigh: I don't care if it doesn't win rounds. I care if the argument is legitimate or not.
2. "Also you do NOT have to pay the money back eventually, a lender would be perfectly happy to continue to lend you money if all you ever did was pay the interest if you don't think so ask your credit card company." This is what I was talking about. That's actually a bad thing, IMO.
is it a bad thing?
??? I didn't follow you there.
If the Neg runs a Kritik, that just happens to also Kritik the real-world, but then fails to offer an alternative, how can you vote for the Negative. Their "real-world" option after the ballot is still Kritiked just like the Affirmative's. So, you need to provide an alternative, and one that will actually solve.
It seemed pretty obvious as me. What you spend now you can't spend later - cuz you then must pay it back.
But as you argued just two sentences ago, you don't
necessarily have to pay it back.
Perhaps I should say it this way: "Any more debt, and we'll NEVER pay it back b/c the interest on the debt will equal our GDP at this rate. Any more money printed, and we'll end up w/ double-digit inflation (which isn't good for the econ), and that will probably lead us to hyper inflation (i.e. Dollar=Destroyed, US Credibility=Destroyed, Society=Destroyed, Global Trade=Destroyed, Life as we Know it=Destroyed). If the AFF continues w/ this unjustifiable idea (not necessarily of the entire SQ, but implemented w/ every policy), that's what causes this." As I previously stated:
"Any more?" How much is "any more?" $1 million? $1,000? $0.01? You can't give me a threshold, so my tangible impacts to the harms should be preferred. And each of your impact "probably" rests upon a previously
"probable" impact. That's, like, the definition of a slippery slope.
Wait, did you just equate a K's alternative w/ a DA's uniqueness? You were the one who originally told me a K didn't need uniqueness.
They're similar, but not the same. You have to provide an alternative to the Kritik, especially when it's non-unique, or there is no reason to vote for it.
Um... Many adults (i.e. judges in our area) would think differently. So do I. And no, they aren't all wrong about how money works. How about a moral linear argument?
they right about on money, then? Stephanie's argument that you can't spend money you don't have (and her car example) is false, and that's what you were saying you and the moms believe in. But again, it's false
And again, just because the parents think that way, doesn't mean it's right. I've already told you about preaching to the choir.
Moral linear? I'm having a hard time imagining that one.
I think it's unfair for the Affirmative to expect to get away with a lame cop-out that their spending is no more licentious than the SQ. So how do we decide between the two? (We can just about assume that neither position is truly completely defensible).
How is it a cop-out to say "That's how the government works, and I don't understand the "complex and complicated" internal workings of US monetary policy?"
2. Then why don't they want to specify some way in which they can pay, and why can't they give a number?
Like I said earlier, I can't know which program will be cut.
You are condoning it by incorporating it into you plan.
No, I'm following procedure.
Neither do I. "Spending responsibly" =/= "Not spending."
And to evaluate responsibility you have justify the means (spending, which isn't bad) with the ends (benefits of the plan). Again, this is based on your own definition of the term.
BTW, if I didn't address something, I thought it was either obvious or previously stated.
Determining responsibility for monetary actions? I didn't see a response to that.
I also didn't see you responding to the fact
that the government has and can spend money "it doesn't have."