I also found this article
Happy researching!
Showing posts with label december. Show all posts
Showing posts with label december. Show all posts
Monday, November 11, 2013
Monday, November 4, 2013
Dec. PF topic help
Very informative FAQ related to the December PF topic:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/questions-and-answers-immigration/?_r=0
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/questions-and-answers-immigration/?_r=0
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Corporate Welfare
Ending Corporate Welfare could fit the definition of "tax increases," since it ends tax breaks for corporations. Check out this article for more on the issue and PRO ammo.
Corporate Welfare
Corporate Welfare
Monday, November 19, 2012
Dec. PF topic analysis
Resolved: The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts.
Taxation has been a hot partisan issue for the past few decades. It's never not been a hot issue, but it has become increasingly contentious as most Democrats advocate for higher taxes (mainly on the "wealthy") and Republicans counter with supporting government spending cuts. Let's look at an analogy that takes place at home:
Your family takes in about $100,000 a year. Something happens and for whatever reason the income drops from $100K to $75K a year. You can do one of two things: Get more income from other jobs or reduce your spending. Most families in a situation like this will start reducing their spending. They'll reduce/eliminate their spending on luxuries before cutting into more important expenses like mortgage, car-note, etc.
Our government has seen a reduction in the amount of money it has available. Fighting two wars, expanding the size government (thank Bush and Obama for that), spending money on natural disasters and other outlays will deplete the money pile pretty quickly. The government can definitely cut spending and raise taxes but this debate is about which one should the government do first.
Taxation is mostly done through personal income, so a tax increase would obviously take effect there. We have a progressive (or graduated) tax rate; the more you make the more you pay. The IRS offers tax deductions for any number of things such as children, eco-friendly purchases, etc. which reduces the amount we're taxed.
Government spending is outlined in the annual budget the President submits to Congress for approval. The bulk of the spending is in defense. There are many pie-charts and graphs depicting the government's budget where you can see where your tax dollars go.
PRO - tax increases
Your increases can go one of several ways...
Letting the Bush tax-cuts expire. This would repeal the tax cuts that Bush Jr. enacted at the beginning of his Presidency. You will want to look at letting them expire specifically for the upper-income earners. Here's a good article on the benefits of letting those tax cuts expire:
Benefits of letting tax cuts expire
There are other types of taxes that could be increased:
gas tax
soda tax - also called an excise tax
Of course any sort of tax plan you offer should argue that the U.S. economy is now strong enough to weather the increase.
CON - "taxes" are you insane?!
Raising taxes is an idea that is never received well, even less so when the economy is in the toilet. Typical Con strategy can go one of two ways: Both/neither should be prioritized or spending cuts should be prioritized. I don't think the former is really worth it, so here's how you argue for spending cuts.
8 ways to cut government spending
CATO institute proposal
cutting defense spending
This should get you started. I'll help you with showing the DISADS for both sides later on.
Taxation has been a hot partisan issue for the past few decades. It's never not been a hot issue, but it has become increasingly contentious as most Democrats advocate for higher taxes (mainly on the "wealthy") and Republicans counter with supporting government spending cuts. Let's look at an analogy that takes place at home:
Your family takes in about $100,000 a year. Something happens and for whatever reason the income drops from $100K to $75K a year. You can do one of two things: Get more income from other jobs or reduce your spending. Most families in a situation like this will start reducing their spending. They'll reduce/eliminate their spending on luxuries before cutting into more important expenses like mortgage, car-note, etc.
Our government has seen a reduction in the amount of money it has available. Fighting two wars, expanding the size government (thank Bush and Obama for that), spending money on natural disasters and other outlays will deplete the money pile pretty quickly. The government can definitely cut spending and raise taxes but this debate is about which one should the government do first.
Taxation is mostly done through personal income, so a tax increase would obviously take effect there. We have a progressive (or graduated) tax rate; the more you make the more you pay. The IRS offers tax deductions for any number of things such as children, eco-friendly purchases, etc. which reduces the amount we're taxed.
Government spending is outlined in the annual budget the President submits to Congress for approval. The bulk of the spending is in defense. There are many pie-charts and graphs depicting the government's budget where you can see where your tax dollars go.
PRO - tax increases
Your increases can go one of several ways...
Letting the Bush tax-cuts expire. This would repeal the tax cuts that Bush Jr. enacted at the beginning of his Presidency. You will want to look at letting them expire specifically for the upper-income earners. Here's a good article on the benefits of letting those tax cuts expire:
Benefits of letting tax cuts expire
There are other types of taxes that could be increased:
gas tax
soda tax - also called an excise tax
Of course any sort of tax plan you offer should argue that the U.S. economy is now strong enough to weather the increase.
CON - "taxes" are you insane?!
Raising taxes is an idea that is never received well, even less so when the economy is in the toilet. Typical Con strategy can go one of two ways: Both/neither should be prioritized or spending cuts should be prioritized. I don't think the former is really worth it, so here's how you argue for spending cuts.
8 ways to cut government spending
CATO institute proposal
cutting defense spending
This should get you started. I'll help you with showing the DISADS for both sides later on.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Dec. PF Topic help
Resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals.
Before getting into the Pro's and Con's of this topic, it's important to acknowledge some things and make sure the debates don't veer off into shouting matches about class warfare (which is likely to happen anyway).
The income disparity in this country, or wealth gap, has grown considerably over the years. Many stats will prove that. But is it such a given that this condition is a bad thing? After all, the wealthy provide a lot of opportunities for regular folks. Jobs. Scholarships. Charitable donations. Some CEO's don't even take a salary as they make their millions in investments. And who are we talking about when we talk about the poor? There are people who live in unsavory neighborhoods. There are those who use social welfare (food stamps, medicaid, unemployment benefits). But even most of those people own cars, use cell-phones and have televisions. The poor in Somalia would have nothing in common with the poor in the U.S. The truly poor in our country would be the homeless and families in crisis.
Thinking about these issues will help you focus your points. It will also help you to stay on topic and avoid points that vilify the wealthy or make rude judgements about the poor. Instead, ask yourself "Despite my feelings about the wealthy and/or the poor, what affect do these circumstances have on ideals like equal representation, the civil duty of voting, and the integrity of government?"
If you're still struggling I'll have some point-specific items up this weekend.
Before getting into the Pro's and Con's of this topic, it's important to acknowledge some things and make sure the debates don't veer off into shouting matches about class warfare (which is likely to happen anyway).
The income disparity in this country, or wealth gap, has grown considerably over the years. Many stats will prove that. But is it such a given that this condition is a bad thing? After all, the wealthy provide a lot of opportunities for regular folks. Jobs. Scholarships. Charitable donations. Some CEO's don't even take a salary as they make their millions in investments. And who are we talking about when we talk about the poor? There are people who live in unsavory neighborhoods. There are those who use social welfare (food stamps, medicaid, unemployment benefits). But even most of those people own cars, use cell-phones and have televisions. The poor in Somalia would have nothing in common with the poor in the U.S. The truly poor in our country would be the homeless and families in crisis.
Thinking about these issues will help you focus your points. It will also help you to stay on topic and avoid points that vilify the wealthy or make rude judgements about the poor. Instead, ask yourself "Despite my feelings about the wealthy and/or the poor, what affect do these circumstances have on ideals like equal representation, the civil duty of voting, and the integrity of government?"
If you're still struggling I'll have some point-specific items up this weekend.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Dec. PF Topic help
Consider this assigned reading for the weekend if you're doing PF at Oak Ridge. Or assigned reading in general for debaters.
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/taskforcereport.pdf
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/taskforcereport.pdf
Thursday, November 3, 2011
December PF Topic
Resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals.
I want to marry this topic!
I want to marry this topic!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)