query: Should social security be privatized?

positive: Taxes should be Significantly Cut Point 1: Some taxes are justifiable and needed, but the current tax rates are terrible. The taxes we pay for public services with should come from the individual State and not the Country because the public services come from the State, so you would be paying for other's peoples' public services. And the taxes we pay for our social programs and our safety net should be almost completely eliminated. I believe in cutting taxes and spending. Not one or the other. And we should have our own safety net instead of relying on the Government to do that for us. And taxes do not improve overall standard of living because whatever you get out of taxes, you are still paying for it. The Wealthy have no moral obligation or duty to give back to the other people because they fund their life by providing high quality and low price goods. Point 2: Lowering taxes for the individual frees up money so that he or she can buy something and feel comfortable about it with no later regrets. And all of the Bush deficit talk was just Clinton's policies taking into effect. After 2003, the deficits decreased significantly. The rich not only invest in stocks and securities, but they buy multi-million dollar cars, houses, yachts, and much more. And a lot of that money they re-invest back into the business becuase it will make them more money. That is the one good thing about greed. It keeps business alive. And if the rich received tax cuts, they could either countribue to GDP by buying a big-ticket item or go invest in his or her business(s) which will help them by getting them more money, help the workers by having better working conditions, salaries, and a reduced risk of being laid off, and helps the consumer buy letting him or her have a high quality good at a lower price, which is very appealing in bad economic times. And again, it is not the Government's job to institute Social Programs or to build safety nets. Point 3: Like I said, you can use the sales tax during inflation. That would lower GDP, thus curbing inflation. I guess drop this tax. Point 4: I am not saying you should end Social Security, I said that it should be privatized (for businesses), and even then, it should be the employee's choice. And the businesses offering social security would not give it up because one, it does not waste their money, and two, makes sure their employees live a good life (yes, businesses care about their employees). Privatized Social Security would not only decrease taxes, reduce the deficit, and reduce Government aspending, but it would benefit the employees better than National Social Security because they can opt out when they are in a difficult financial situation and need money. Point 5: The property taxes penalize people with a lot of land. Poor or rich. A poor farmer with the same land as a billionaire would be paying the same in property taxes. It reduces agricultural yield. And the estate taxes (or inheritance taxes) are unnecessary for the same reason because they affect the poor and rich because all people inherit. And I said inheritance taxes, not estate taxeds. All pay taxes for inheritance. Point 6: If they are sold underground, by nature they are not paying taxes because that is the definition of underground selling. And excise taxes do not reduce likeihood that people engage in dangerous/poor behaviors because most of these behaviors are addictive, and they will buy the product no matter the price. And why do you think they repealed prohibition? Because prohibiting dangerous materials of that nature (not hard drugs, like alcohol or smoking) should not be prohibited or penalized by the Government. That is not their job, and they should not because it is unconstitutional. Point 7: It's not the tax cuts, it's the market speculation and Obama. The tax cuts again by nature free up money for businesses because they have more to spend. If their amount of money is over their current safety net, they will expand. There is a constant point on the safety net. It is not forever. When they expand, by nature again, they build more businesses, thus increasing GDP, hire more, this reducing unemployment and increasing GDP (because they have more money to spend), and it encourages more companies to do things like that, thus making a meaningful difference in the economy. And like you said, if the tax code was more efficient, it would increase foreign investment. Point 8: The current energy sources are fossil fuels, and it has been proven on numerous occasions that renewable energy is a lot less effective than fossil fuels. We should not be in a rush to move to renewable energy sources because it will cause a crushing recession and will slow travel down by over 95%, thus making the economy even worse. And the rich already pay more than their fair share in taxes, and the poor pay less than their fair share in taxes. Point 9: If the Government would reduce spending (which it needs to do), the current tax system would be outdated. And that quote you gave that said that the rich pay less taxes than the middle class is impossible because the current tax rates say otherwise. Contra: Sorry if this was a semi-lousy argument with no sources. I have a slight fever and forgot about my debates until it was almost too late. I will make my argument better and have a lot more sources for the next round.

positive: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized REBUTTALS: 1: Yes/No: SS might go into the red due to baby boomers retired/retiring against the low numbers supporting their retirement, but there are other contributing factors. Issues affecting SS Old-Age and Survivors Insurance OASI (RIB when paid out), is more insidious than ratios. First, the gov borrowed $2.5T from the fund between 1970-1983 [19] issuing Treasury Bonds against the loans. From 1983-2000 the SS Trust Fund TF was at a surplus [20] and could fund the boomer’s retirement into the future. G.W. Bush saw the surplus and cut taxes reducing influx of finds [21]. Despite decreases funding to OASI it is self perpetuating with its balance and funding at current rates. TF depletion will not start until 2024. In 2015 the fund ran at 308% above cost, by 2024 it’s expected to be at 171% [22]. Pro’s cit.#2 states this. Projected short fall is due to Disability Insurance DI, a separate fund from OASI, soon to be depleted. The Trustees recommend OASI merge with DI so funds are available for DI future liabilities. The pooling of funds resulting in depletion of both systems by 2035; combined factors increase of boomers retiring and DI outlays [22, 23];robbing Peter to pay Paul. There’s no denying there’ll be an issue with OASI/RIB in the future. It’s probable the 2 funds will be merged, but privatization is not the answer. Pro’s cit.#3, the NCPA, “The NCPA’s solutions promote private alternatives to government regulation and control”. The author, Pamela Villarreal is a NCPA analyst/writer, not unbiased. Privatization at whose expense? Who will profit and benefit? The gov does not have a profit motive. Present admin expenses of SS is at 1% [24]. 2: Choice is good, but who will determine what the options will be? Which system will be chosen; a centralized gov system or private financial? As stated in R1, There’s no denying that the financial sector will have sway [15,16,25]. They have a poor track record in protecting the public interest, remember 2008? Please explain how a larger investment is made at a cheaper cost? In the par.1, Pro’s cit.#5, 2001 states, people will pay into a new system but also it’s “assumed future increases in contribution rates that would fully finance the benefits of present law,”echoed in Actuary Report [14 p.29] That’s paying both sides of the benefit, you pay into a Individual Plan (IP) for yourself and pay toward maintenance of the current system. #5 further states “Social Security benefits are not fully adequate for making comparisons with private-sector plans, since many features of Social Security benefits are not typically available in private-sector plans” then concludes “scaled pattern results in slightly higher internal real rates of return under the OASDI program, and slightly lower accumulations for individual accounts.” Current tax is 12.4%[31] and it’s recommended there be a raise in SS tax by 1.1%. Let’s assume that it will be split equally between SS and the new IP. You start in the red by almost 60%; 50% gone to current/future liabilities which you cannot claim against due to your IP. Your claim of 11.5% return in TX/FL is not in cit.#5. Where did this number come from? Pretending this as true, the returns don’t look attractive considering ½ of what you put in is gone to liabilities at a lower rate than at present, crashing SS even quicker. Remember, it’ll take 75 yrs for SS to be solvent. Pro’s cit #6 requires subscription, a headline is not a whole story. Pro’s cit.#7, 2001 reflects what Martin Feildstein stated in the 1990s. Then the article moves into review of G.W Bush’s plan, in office at the time, hence the title “President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security.”It’s assumes the IP would be similar to the Thrift Savings Plan that gov workers have with a RoR of 6.5%. But here’s the catch, SS OASDI “would require additional revenues in perpetuity in order to pay scheduled Social Security benefits”With his plan, only 2% paid in goes to an IP, the rest to liabilities of the old SS. BTW, you cannot claim benefits from SS because of your IP. The math: pay $10 pr/wk in SS taxes, $2 for me at 6.5% interest, $8 for current/future liabilities at 2.5%. At the end of 30 yrs compounded my 2% grows to $11,725. The rest at $8 pr/wk for 30 yrs at 2.5% is $23,008. Your kids can inherit the funds if you die young, but there’ll be 0 to inherit should you live for a time after retirement. Also, depending in what state you live, inheritance can be taxed. The Fed does not tax below 5.4M. With cash flowing out of IPs, will it remain so? Or if after a time will the Feds decide not to allow the IP money to pass to family? They’ll have 75 yrs to futz with it. Pro’s cit.#8, 1996 On personal accounts benefiting the poor with a greater return and increase savings, but it does not addresses how the current/future liabilities of SS will be funded during attrition into all IPs. Pro:“The first part is that people are mishandling their money…”Just a reminder, you brought this up “Posted by: lannan13, No counter plans. Wednesday, May 04, 2016 @ 12:43:03 AM.” You have a plan? It’s great! You can up your own tax deduction into the present Pay As You Go system for possible early retirement. How is this an IP? The current PAYG system is not paying for your retirement. It’s paying for those already or soon to be retired. And your public option has no details. How long will you phase out the current system with 9.6-15.7T in liabilities over 75 yrs [26]? You’ll do it in 10? Pro’s cit #9, 1995. Chili isn’t the US. At the time of AFP implementation 1981, their ratio of workers to retirees was 9-1, the US 4-1. To offset transition costs the gov. sold off state owned enterprises (Socialist), the US has no such assets. The US can only issue Treasury Bonds increasing the national dept. Also, Chili incentivized workers to join with an 18% pay increase. Many employers failed in payments due to dual taxes for the old/new systems; underground employment resulting. By 1994 only 55% of the work force was a part of the plan; 22% of the remaining failed to make payments. Also, the AFP RoR has fluctuated greatly with economic ups and downs. Chili took over AFP in 82-4 through buy backs and lost money in 1995 [27].The funds are in for profit institutions which cut deeply into profits with admin fees. 70% of the work force only works 6 mo. of the yr resulting in uneven contribution rates. 25% will not have saved enough for retirement. In addition, there is no system of equity for women or low wage workers to bring them up to a minimum benefit. The system does not work [28]. Galveston cit.#10, 1998 is a commentary. The Galveston plan does not offer a guarantee to surviving spouse or dependent children if death should occur prior to retirement or an adjustment for inflation. Single and high earning individuals reap more than under the current SS system; mid and low earners collect less. Workers are assigned an individual account but have no choice on investment decisions. Wealth building at the top but not at the bottom [29, 30] Pro’s cit.#11 op-ed:Pablo is a high paid economist, not typical. It also mirrors what I stated earlier.“The biggest problem in Chile is that many workers don't contribute regularly to their pensions because they're unemployed or working off the books.” Pro’s cit #12 requires a subscription, moot. Pro’s cit.#13 1997, regarding the Chilean system, which does not work and leaves out large swaths of the population. Most of your citations are old, more recent material tells a different story [28]. 19. http://tinyurl.com... 20. http://tinyurl.com... 21. http://tinyurl.com... 22. http://tinyurl.com... 23. http://tinyurl.com... 24. http://tinyurl.com... 25. http://tinyurl.com... 26. http://tinyurl.com... 27. http://preview.tinyurl.com... 28. http://tinyurl.com... 29. http://tinyurl.com... 30. http://tinyurl.com... 31. http://tinyurl.com...

positive: Private social security accounts are voluntary. Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that is raidable by politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option."

positive: Privatizing social security Privatizing social security would wrongly enrich banks.

positive: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than currently privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.

positive: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.

positive: Social security unsustainable with retiring workforce. "Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea." San Diego Union Tribune: "The problem is that the system is unsustainable, as should be evident with the impending retirement of 70 million baby boomers - brought to you by smaller corps of younger workers who will be taxed to the gills to pay for it. Consider this: In 1946, the cost of supporting one retiree was divided between 42 workers. Now we're approaching the point where the cost of each retiree will be divided between only two workers. That is bound to put enormous strain on those workers. The real trouble begins in 2016 when - according to the experts - more will be going out in benefits than coming in as payroll taxes."

positive: Resolved: The police should be privatized Police services should be private for the same reason that health care, food production, and housing should be private; it is more efficient. When firms operate for profit they are incentivized to satisfy consumers' preferences quickly, cheaply, and efficiently. If they fail to satisfy consumers, they will quickly cease to exist. Examples of these incentives are evident in our everyday lives. If I order something from Amazon and it gets lost in the mail, they will send me a new item with no questions asked. If I have a dispute with the IRS, even if its their fault, the process will be a nightmare. Amazon will bend over backwards to keep my business. What incentive does the IRS have to be helpful in the least? When the government provides a service, they will generally establish a monopoly. Thus, it does not have to fear competition. This is as true for the police as it is for any other facet of government. If someone is breaking in my house and I call the police, what is their incentive to get to my house quickly and stop the intruder efficiently? Altruism? If the intruder murders me and my family, the police station won't lose a dime. If anything, they will say that if they had more funding it wouldn't have happened. Imagine what private police firms would look like. They could be licensed by the government to uphold the law. Individuals and businesses would hire firms, much like security guards now, to protect their property. Subdivisions could have a small force that everyone contributes to. These firms would probably make it a point to check on every one of their customer's properties periodically. You could let them know when you'll be out of town. They would probably keep at least one officer within 5-10 minutes of every house. If the firm had a good reputation, they would gain customers and make more money. If they didn't, they would go out of business. Firms would probably insure their customers in cases of robbery. If they are unable to stop the robbery or recover the stolen items they would pay out. Although this is all speculation, private firms would at least have the incentive to go above and beyond where the government does not. Another important benefit of private police is that violent crimes would take top priority. A private firm would have no monetary incentive to harass people over victimless crimes like drug use, prostitution, or gambling. They would be focused exclusively on the safety and satisfaction of their customers. This means that policemen would spend their time catching murderers, rapists, and thieves rather than sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun. Lastly, examine the behavior of a police officers as opposed to a private sector employee. Go on youtube and you can watch an endless supply of videos of police acting with completely unnecessary aggression. - A policewoman dumping a quadriplegic man out of his wheelchair - A policeman throwing a flashbang into a babies crib - Many policeman killing dogs who posed no legitimate threat All of these actions would be unthinkable in the private sector. If a Walmart employee dumped a quadriplegic man out of his wheelchair he/she would be fired immediately and Walmart would be sued. When its a police officer they "launch an investigation"; and good luck suing the police. To my knowledge, FedEx and UPS drivers arent known for shooting up peoples pets when they come to the door. Private firms are much more likely to treat people with dignity, lest they lose business and money in lawsuits. In conclusion, private police forces would be forced to cater directly to their constomer's needs. This means that they would provide a higher level of safety, they would waste less resources in doing so, and they would be forced to act like public servants and not bullies.

positive: Abolish Social Security Unpromising, chaotic, and fraud. Social security fits this description exactly; therefore social security must be abolished. I take an affirmative stance to abolish Social security for the following contentions; Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. Under Social Security, lower and middle class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income, approximately 12 percent for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from them, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. They cannot count on Social Security for anything-except a massive drain on his income. Therefore, there is absolutely no way that the system can even guarantee future retirees the equal amount that they had previously contributed to Social security, making this system inequitable. Fixing the Social security system is essentially impossible. The government has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935 yet, the system is still crippling. Proving my point further, that Social security should be abolished immediately. In 2002, there were 186 million workers in America and 190 million retired people. This was the beginning of the end of the Social security system. The workforce can no longer acquire the money necessary to give to the retirement population. The evidence continues to mount. According to newyorktimes.com, by 2010, while 41 million new workers enter the workforce, a staggering 76 million workers will enter retirement. This is an unfathomable amount and impossible for the social security system to reach a solution for how these retired people are going to get money. How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual-and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the individual of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to enjoy their most vital years, and less able to invest in themselves. If Social Security did not exist, individual workers could be free to use that 12 percent of their income as they choose making their ability to better their future incomparably greater. They could save for their retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or they could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. They might choose to work far past the age of 65 or choose to invest in their own productivity through additional education or starting a business. So the future of this individual's life is up to no one but themselves. This would encourage many Americans to work to earn money for a better future. To conclude my remarks, I urge my fellow debators to vote in affirmation.

positive: Abolish Social Security You started off your argument with the following contentions: "Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. " First off, you're right, social security will not advance us as a country. However, neither is it necessarily a bad thing. Many people, this might come off as rude, are stupid. They don't know how to invest, so if left to their own devices, as you suggested, they would end up on the streets after retirement. Social Security was started for this reason. Second, You said that America will not be able to support it. This is not necessarily true. While more people will be retiring than employing, you have to take into account that you are referring to the baby boom generation, where fewer kids were born. Unless we have another generation like that, Social Security could be sustained, so long as people actually start to get jobs. The system for Social Security is sound, the problem is the people. Without it, people would complain that the government isn't helping them if they aren't working, but but with it, no one works, they retire early or something, if people got jobs and kept them, and didn't retire at a young age, then we could sustain it. The problem is when people aren't keeping their jobs for a long time, or when they retire early. Third, you said that people should be able to invest their own money. I would like to point out that Social Security is not mandatory, as stated in Wikipedia: "Obtaining a Social Security number for a child who is not working is voluntary. Further, there is no general legal requirement that individuals join the Social Security program. " So if you desire, you can go invest elsewhere, it isn't necessary to be a part of the program, most people just choose to be. You said that the money is not invested or saved at all, but in Wikipedia, it says: "When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U. S. Government bonds". So there is money saved, not all of it is immediately spent. And you're right, it can't be fixed, because like I said, the system is sound. it's the people who retire early, and possibly how much is being given out that is the problem. Now be honest. If you were given (for example) an extra twenty thousand dollars per year due to no Social Security, would you invest it? For you maybe yes, maybe no. I would. But a lot of people wouldn't. They would spend it. Then they would retire and have no money, and complain that the government isn't helping them out after their retirement.

positive: social security should b means tested against the rich social security should be means tested against the rich a person making a hundred and fifty thousand dollars is in the ninety percentile of income. if we cut out benefits for the top ten percent, then, we'd be reducing the cost of social security by more than ten percent given theyd otherwise be getting much bigger than average payouts. cutting social security by ten fifteen or twenty percent would go a long way to balancing the budget. that is, if we cut the whole budget by thirteen percent, we'd balance the budget. i'm just arguing that social security houldn't be exempt. i'd rather not cut their benefits, but we need to find places to cut to balance the budget. please, tell me how you would address the fiscal situation without cutting benefits? or do you think everyone's benefits should be cut not just the rich? should we cut defense more? if you say we should privatize social security and medicare, you still have to show how you'd pay for current and near retirees. this will take decades to deal with. the current generation retiring has been borrowing aganst social security to pay for goverment and defense. it's only fair we focus on not lettin them pass the buck onto the next generation by cutting their benefits some.

positive: Privatising social security will harm retirees As Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the non-partisan think tank the Century Foundation argue: "Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone’s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But… research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.”[1] Most people don’t have the knowledge to manage their own investments. A Securities and Exchange Commission report showed the extent of financial illiteracy for example half of adults don’t know what a stock market is, half don’t understand the purpose of diversifying investments and 45% believe it provides “a guarantee that [their] portfolio won’t suffer if the stock market falls”[2] Including all the management costs it is safe to say that growth from individual accounts will be lower than the market average. The private sector is therefore in no better a position to make investment decisions than the state. Privatised accounts would bring their own problems. They are vulnerable to market downturns. Despite crashes the long term return from shares has always been positive. But this does not help those that hit retirement age during a period when the stock market is down. With private pensions people would be relying on luck that they retire at the right time or happened to pick winning stocks.[3] The economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, privatizers make incredible assumptions about the likely performance of the market in order to be able to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. The price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050. This is unrealistic and would be an immense bubble as a P/E ratio of 20 to 1 is considered more normal today.[4] If returns are low then there the added worry that privatized social security may not beat inflation. This would mean that retiree’s pensions become worth less and less. At the moment Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation so providing protection.  Privatizing social security would have a big impact on those who want to remain in the system through falling tax revenues.  Implementing private accounts will take 4 per-cent of the 12.4 per-cent taken from each worker’s annual pay out of the collective fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster.[5] It is for reasons such as these that privatization of similar social security systems has disappointed elsewhere, as Anrig and Wasow argue: "Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, “more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.””[6] Therefore privatizing Social Security would actually harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and so 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. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [2] Office of Investor Education and Assistance Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘The Facts on Saving and Investing’, April 1999, http://www.sec.gov/pdf/report99.pdf pp.16-19 [3] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [4] Spitzer, Elliot. "Can we finally kill this terrible idea?" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [6] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf

positive: Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on Private accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments.[1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55’s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government’s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice.[2] As Andrew Roth argues, "Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option."[3 Social Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don’t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree’s contributions during their working life is less than  the return on a passbook savings account.[4] Secondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. The current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs.[5] Privatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream.[6] Moreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual’s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them.[7] This would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on.[8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments. [1] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [2] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21  September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [3] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21  September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [4] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [5] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [6] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [7] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21  September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [8] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html

positive: Privatising social security would improve economic growth Privatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: "If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future."[1]  As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: "Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor."[2] Currently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA’s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents.[3] Change could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: “While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.”[4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere. Put simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized. [1] Schibuola, Alex. "Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security." Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-... [2] Tanner, Michael. "Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor." CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. "Privatizing social security the right way". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf [4] Roth, Andrew. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!". Club for Growth.21  September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?

positive: social security should b means tested against the rich i mostly just reiterate my last points. as to privatizing ss. if people are left to be in total control of their money, most will be impoverished by old age, and there will be a crisis. also, poor people are subsidized a bit with ss as it is now, and they wouldn't receive that any more, which they should. ie the excess wealth is what should pay for the people who are too poor.

negative: The United States needs Universal Healthcare. the United states needs universal healthcare because #1. our system now is crap #2. The deductables and copays are way too excessive. #3. doctors arent focused on treating the patient as much as making sure the hospital gets paid #4. With Universal healthcare, sure the gov't would run the system, but couldnt we be like France where they pay their doctors bonuses to help their patients (i.e. if a doctor get 5 of his/her patients to stop smoking = bonus) #5. It would raise the care our citizens recieve

negative: Financial Education Should Be Taught In Schools I personally think financially education should be taught in schools, I am quite angered how it is not which leaves bright children unable to even secure their own retirement in their futures. This is the reason why there is such a big wealth gap between the top 1% and the rest of the 99%. What do you think?

negative: Get rid of parole When someone is convicted of murder should they get rid of parole and automatically send them to death row?

negative: Obamacare should be repealed. R1: Proper Passage The bill was passed with open hearings. The Committee that wrote the PPACA composed of 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Together, they had open discussions over 60 hours long, and were publicly broadcasted on CSPAN. Eventually, the committee formed the eventual Senate bill. The Senate passed this legislation, and the House passed a different bill. So, Obama created a Senate-like health reform bill, and the House later passed it. [1] The provisions in the bill, as I have earlier said and have been left unrefuted, are largely popular with the American public. The ideas like everyone should have access to care, insurance companies should spend more on health care than administrative costs, the risk pool should be expanded to lower risk and therefore costs, and people with preexisting conditions should have coverage all have strong support among the U.S. population. This bill has bipartisan ideas from both sides of Congress. It has a Medicaid expansion, protections for consumers, and a strengthening of Medicare. For Conservatives, it has state exchanges, greater competition for insurance plans, an individual mandate (some Cons like this part — like Newt Gingrich), and for both sides it expands the risk pool. In conclusion, this bill has bipartisan elements from both sides of the aisle, and enough from both sides to ensure realistic passage. The committee bill was processed via transparency and open hearings, visible fully on CSPAN. The Constituional guidelines in place were followed, and as well as being passed in Congress, the American public support the provisions in the bill. R2: Enhances Medicare Efficiency Pro has brought up this point numerous times, so I will resolve it for good. The PPACA strengthens Medicare. It increases its tax base primarily on high income taxpayers, as well as using preventive care, and making payments to insurance providers more efficient and reducing fraud. So, Medicare spending is reduced by $500 billion, by using more efficiency and preventive care. The CBO has upheld the idea that this bill has strengthened Medicare's financial position. [2] So, Obamacare enhances Medicare efficiency and bolsters its solvency. R3: More Affordable Health Care Pro claims that the USA has a universal access system. This is absurd. First, the tens of millions of uninsured Americans, (which was reduced by 30 million because of Obamacare) suffer substantially worse health outcomes than the uninsured. [3] Then, Pro horribly rewords my statements. "Obamacare does nothing to reduce any of those emergencies, and Con says 85% of the patients are true emergencies." I supported with empirical evidence earlier that 85% of emergency room visits ARE NOT emergencies, and many of those people come because they are uninsured. Obamacare, because it reduces the uninsured by 30 million [5], it reduces the amount of uninsured emergency room visits by at least 26%. [6] Pro also states,"half of physicians won't take new Medicare patients." Factual evidence shows that in fact, only 10% of Medicare patients said their PCP wouldn't take their insurance, while those with private insurance showed that 17-24% of patients said that their PCP wouldn't take their insurance. Medicare has better access to care. Pro says that many doctors will quit because of Obamacare. This is similar to the studies done right after Medicare was initially passed. Many physicians were considering to quit because of the new health insurance program. However, after they realized the benefits, they realized they had nothing to fear. [7] So, many doctors may think about quitting, but like under Medicare, they will likely universally realize that the PPACA is good for all, some of the benefits identical to the ones I have described in this debate. Pro then says we cannot afford Obamacare. Still, the evidence says otherwise. The CBO says that Obamacare reduces the deficit by $210 billion between 2011-2021. [7] So, if you repeal Obamacare, you vote to increase our debt, vote to increase health care costs, and all the other negative externalities that I will summarize soon. The Independent Advisory Payment Board, which will help reduce Medicare spending by tens of billions [9], does not make certain procedures complusory to what they find. They simply rank the efficacy of certain treatments and procedures, send the results to PCPs, and let doctors practice with greater success and effect. The example that Pro brings up has been twisted. Obama simply says that if no treatment would work that well for the person, and the doctor thinks that the person has good "spirit", they could just take a pain pill instead. If the patient agrees, of course. Basically, the Independent Board ranks treatments so that doctors can practice with more effect. The information provided is not compulsory, as the Medicare cuts are made to providers such as insurance providers. In fact, the Republican plan also expands onto these Medicare cuts. [2] About the tax code, I am greatful of Pro's explanation. However, the words in the PPACA does not accurately configure with the tax code. This bill legislates many things, some of it does direct to taxes, and how much people can receive in federal subsidies for health care, but many of the words also construct how to make Medicare more efficient, the guidelines for the state exchanges, the new regulations to protect consumers from the insurance companies, all these provisions and more do not effect tax compliance costs. And the CBO did re-adjust their initial costs, they estimated that the new taxes would increase costs by $8 billion. [7] I said that employer sponsored health insurance will only modestly change, because how it relates to the previous situation. In the past, an employer could choose to sponsor health insurance, or not. Now with the PPACA, an employer can sponsor health insurance, and be aided with various tax credits to gain from providing insurance as well as healthier workers, or they can give no insurance and pay penalties. --So, as you can see, Obamacare provides no new incentives to drop insurance. It only incentivizes it. This is why in Massachusetts employer sponsored health insurance increased. [10] Obamacare is not fully implemented, the mass of the bill takes effect in 2014. R3: Freedom Basically, the insurance mandate eliminates the problem of free riders. It is like car insurance, which people are required to have, so that all car drivers are safer. Except, this case makes it so that our citizens are healthier, so if they land in the E.R., we have less of a collective burden. The PPACA reduces costs, improving economic freedom for many individuals. It helps doctors provide more effective treatments. The Constitutional law will help people get health care, and make it more affordable and secure. Conclusion Obamacare has many benefits: Reduces the Deficit, by $210 billion over 10 years [7] Health Care is more Affordable, saves about 7-20% for the average person [11] Builds upon bipartisan ideas [1] Reduces health care inflation [7] Increases Efficacy of Health Treatments [9] Improves insurance industry's accountability [5] Protects Patients from industry abuse [5] Passed via Constitutional path with transparent visibility [1] Enhances and Strengthens Medicare's Efficiency and Solvency [7] Reduces the uninsured by 30+ million [5] Expands the risk pool, thus lowering risk and lowering costs. [5] ------------------------------------ The resolution is negated. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] Kessler, Glenn. "Time For A Checkup." Grand Rapids Press 15 7 2012, n. pag. Print. [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com...

negative: Republican Candidates Donald John Trump is an American businessman, politician, television personality, and a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2016 election. Immigration: "As has been stated continuously in the press, people are pouring across our borders unabated. Public reports routinely state great amounts of crime are being committed by illegal immigrants. This must be stopped and it must be stopped now." "We want people to come into our country but they have to come in legally." He will send 50,000 immigrants out, "There going to have to go out, they can come back but they have to go out." "For many years, Mexico's leaders have been taking advantage of the United States by using illegal immigration to export the crime and poverty in their own country (as well as in other Latin American countries)," Trump said. In a rambling, defiant speech delivered in this border state that has been the epicenter of the nation's divisive battle over immigration reform, Trump declared: "These are people that shouldn't be in our country. They flow in like water." Trump said if he's elected president he will "greatly strengthen our border, making it impenetrable, putting a stop to illegal immigration once and for all. I will bring jobs back to the United States." In Monday's statement, Trump doubled down on his commitment to "strong borders" that would keep illegal immigrants from "pouring across our borders unabated. Public reports routinely state great amounts of crime are being committed by illegal immigrants," he said. "The root cause of all the welfare payments to illegal aliens is the so-called 'anchor baby' phenomenon," he explains. "We have at least 11 million people in this country that came in illegally. They will go out, they will come back, some will come back, the best, through a process ... it may not be a very quick process, but I think that's very fair and very fine," said Trump. "I've talked to the greatest legal people, spoken to the greatest security people. There's absolutely no way of saying where these people come from. They may be from Syria, they may be ISIS, they may be ISIS related," Trump said. Defending his plan to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, Trump warned that we will "become so politically correct as a country that we can't even walk. We can't think properly. We can't do anything." "The border is a disaster, Bill. People are pouring in, and I mean illegal people, illegal immigrants -- 300 and some odd thousand are in your state jails right now, according to Homeland Security." "We cannot allow illegal immigrants to pour into our country," he continued. Abortion: "As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I'm pro-life," Trump asserted on the debate stage at the University of Houston. Trump also wrote: "Public funding of abortion providers is an insult to people of conscience at the least and an affront to good governance at best." "I'm pro-life, but with the caveats. It's: Life of the mother (very important), incest and rape," Trump said. "Look, Planned Parenthood has to stop with the abortions," he told host Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press." Trump, explaining why he was inspired to change his position on abortion, spoke of watching an unnamed friend decide against ending a pregnancy: "It was going to be aborted and that child today is a total superstar. It is a great, great child." "I am against abortion... and that is a tremendous amount of the work they do," he said in regards to whether or not he is against defunding Planned Parenthood. Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" with Chuck Todd, Trump said, "Planned Parenthood does a lot, a really good job in a lot of different areas, but not on abortion." "I hate the concept of abortion," Trump said in the full clip. In an op-ed published on the Washington Examiner's website on Jan. 23, Trump wrote that his views on abortion were changed by a "personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me." Again in 1999, Trump stated to the Associated Press, "I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors." "I'm not supporting Planned Parenthood," Trump quipped back. Sixteen years later during the Fox News debate on Aug. 6, he said, "I am pro-life .... I hate the concept of abortion. And then since then, I've very much evolved. I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life." Asked by Todd if he'd shut down the government over Planned Parenthood's abortion services, Trump said, "I'd have to think about it. It bothers me greatly that they're doing the abortions." Gun Patrol: "The right of self-defense doesn't stop at the end of your driveway. That's why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states," he wrote. During his kickoff speech in June, Trump vowed to "fully support and back up the Second Amendment." Trump says there's another way to fight crime - by empowering "law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves." "We love the Second Amendment, folks. Nobody loves it more than us, so just remember that," Trump said to cheers and applause from his supporters who were gathered at the Treasure Island Hotel and Casino on the Las Vegas Strip. "I support the ban on assault weapons and I support slightly longer waiting periods to purchase a gun," said Donald Trump in 2000 in his book, The America We Deserve. "We need to protect our Second Amendment right," he said while pointing out into the audience. "You have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You have that right and they want to take it away," Trump said. "Well, I'm a big Second Amendment person, big, as you probably know," said Trump. "If you had more guns, you'd have more protection because the right people would have the guns," he said. Citing violence in Chicago and Baltimore, Trump said "a lot of the places where you have the biggest problem is where they have the strongest laws," but he demurred when pressed on national gun laws. In the wake of America's most recent mass shooting, Republican front-runner Donald Trump said, "It's not a gun problem, it's a mental illness problem." For the former, he stated, "I am very pro Second Amendment," referring to "just released papers" on the subject at donaldtrump.com. He called for an expansion of treatment programs, citing "red flags that were ignored" that led to recent shooting incidents, and noting that law-abiding gun owners are "blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen." "Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like 'assault weapons', 'military-style weapons' and 'high capacity magazines' to confuse people," Trump wrote Friday. "Trump told crowds, I was talking to some of the people before what would you like me to focus on and they said second amendment, second amendment," explained Trump. Taxes: However, Trump conceded, "I try and pay as little tax as possible, because I hate what they do with my tax money. I hate the way they spend our money." In terms of taxes, Trump has said, "I know people making a tremendous amount of money and paying virtually no taxes, and I think it's unfair." "By my calculations 1 percent of Americans who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country would be affected by my plan -- the other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes," Trump said in a statement introducing his plan in November 1999. "We will bring a lot of additional companies in because our tax rates are going way down," Trump said. Republican candidate Donald Trump said in a statement that "we need leadership in Washington to get the tax code changed so companies will be coming to America, not looking for ways to leave." "When you have a hedge fund guy who's making $200 million a year and ... he's paying a very low rate of taxes, it's not fair and I think it says a lot," he said. "Simplifying the tax code and cutting every American's taxes will boost consumer spending, encourage savings and investment, and maximize economic growth," added Trump. During a news conference at Trump Tower in Manhattan, Trump declared that his proposal will "provide major tax relief for middle-income and for most other Americans." As Trump noted (at about the 3:25 mark) in the same interview, support for a graduated income tax -- as we currently have -- "doesn't mean a raise in taxes. That means rich people might be paying less than they are paying right now." "If you make $200 million a year you pay 10 percent, you're paying very little relatively to somebody that's making $50,000 a year and has to hire H&R Block because it's so complicated," Trump said of a flat tax. On taxes he said he would "start off by simplifying our current system. Put H & R Block out of business ... make it nice and easy for people to understand and reduce taxes." The other Trump said on Fox News earlier this year that he favors "a fair tax, a flat tax or certainly a simplified code." He said he would raise taxes on unfair imports, then, "The lobbyists are going to come and see me, but I don't give a s-- about lobbyists." "No business of any size, from a fortune 500 company to a mom-and-pop shop to a freelancer living from gig to gig, will pay more than 15 percent of their business income in taxes," Trump said. "A lot of families go through hell over the death tax," Trump said. "I want the hedge fund guys to pay more in taxes," he said, as he worked the crowd on his way out of the event. Budget and Spending: "We are going to cut the Department of Education," Trump said when asked if he would cut spending to curb the national debt. Trump added that as a result of the funding plan, Americans will have to "absorb higher deficits, greater debt, less economic liberty, and more corporate welfare." Trump, asked for details of his budget plan, said, "We will cut so much, your head will spin." National Security Trump argued in a USA Today op-ed published last weekend that he "would support and endorse the use of enhanced interrogation techniques if the use of these methods would enhance the protection and safety of the nation. The military under Trump, he said, will "be so big, so strong, so powerful, nobody is going mess with us." "We need much tougher, much smarter leadership - and we need it NOW!" Trump said on Twitter. "I will build a military so strong that we'll never have to use it because they are going to be saying, 'I'm not going to mess with that guy,' " he said, without explaining how he would bolster America's defense. Mr. Trump said he would like to "build a safe zone in Syria, build a big, beautiful safe zone, and you have whatever it is, so they can live." "We have to have a strong military so people don't mess with us," Trump said. Economy and Jobs: "Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas," wrote Trump. H-1B visa. The US H1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields such as in architecture, engineering, mathematics, science, and medicine. "This country is dying. And our workers are losing their jobs," Donald Trump declared. And last month, Trump slammed Apple's foreign manufacturing, vowing, if elected, to make the company "start building their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries." "You see our businesses moving over to Mexico. You see other people are moving into Mexico. Mexico is going to become the next China on a smaller level," Trump says. "I will bring jobs back from China, I will bring jobs back from Japan. I will bring jobs back from Mexico," Trump said. "If you're going to create 10,000 jobs for a town that's in trouble and you need a piece of property, I'll tell you what folks, I want to create jobs and I want to give the people that own that property more than it's worth," he said, suggesting a price structure at odds with the one he tried to use in 1994. In the Derry event referenced above, Trump went into a familiar riff: "China is killing us! They've taken so much of our wealth. They've taken our jobs. They've taken our businesses, they've taken our manufacturing." Trump said the numbers will work out as long as "the economy grows the way it should grow, if I bring jobs back from China, from Japan, from Mexico, from so many countries." Asked why, Trump responded, "Because it wouldn't work, because it's too much. You have to bring in jobs you have to take the jobs back from China, you have to take the jobs back from Mexico." "I will create jobs like you've never seen," Trump told reporters before his speech. He promised to "take jobs back from Japan. I'm going to take jobs back from Mexico. I'm going to take jobs back from Vietnam." In an op-ed piece in last Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Trump asserted that "the worst" of Beijing's "sins" is the "wanton manipulation of China's currency, robbing Americans of billions of dollars of capital and millions of jobs." Health Care: "I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people," said Trump. "We're going to repeal and replace the horror known as Obamacare, it is a horror," said Trump. "I want to get rid of Obamacare and get you something great," Trump vaguely offered. Today Trump said there are people who desperately need care and "you can't let em die in the streets." But in the 2011 volume, Trump complained that Obamacare was a scheme by liberals "to drag America closer to a so-called 'single-payer system,' otherwise known as total government-run health care." Bot of course, Trump thinks Obamacare is "a big, fat, horrible lie" and "a total catastrophe," which he's promised "is going to be a disaster." Foreign/ISRAEL POLICY Trump said as president, "there's nothing I would rather do than bring peace to Israel and its neighbors, generally. I think it serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy." Says Trump in a campaign ad: "I will...quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us." He said he wants U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, but more importantly, "I want other countries to get on the ground fighting ISIS." Frontrunner Donald Trump offered his own strategy for dealing with Islamic State extremists and President Assad: "Let them fight each other and pick up the remnants." "Israel is safe with this one," Trump declared, poking his chest. He termed Riyadh the "world's biggest funder of terrorism," complaining that "Saudi Arabia funnels our petro dollars, our very own money, to fund the terrorists that seek to destroy our people while the Saudis rely on us to protect them." Decades ago he called on the United States to "stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves." "He made statements over the last couple of days that are incredible, trying to justify the war in Iraq. It can't be justified," Trump said, pointing most notably to a "skin in the game" reference Bush made in a foreign policy statement. Civil liberties: LAST TIME TRUMP WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS HE ASKED THE PEOPLE TO RAISE THEIR HAND IF THEY WERE READY FOR THIS HE ROSE HE HAND AND EVERYONE ELSE DID THIS MADE PEOPLE THINK THAT TRUMP WAS TRYING TO BE LIKE HITLER. NEVER COMPARE ANYONE TO HITLER TRUMP'S DAUGHTER MARRIED A JEWISH MAN SHE CONVERTED SHE IS A RELIGIOUS JEW AND HE IS HAPPY FOR ISRAEL HE WANTS MUSLIMS NOT GONE BUT HE WANTS MUSLIM TERRORISTS GONE THANK YOU. "These people always hit me with eminent domain, and frankly I'm not in love with eminent domain," Trump said. Trump added that "when eminent domain is used on a person's property, they get a fortune. And if they're smart they'll get two or three times the value of their property." He also cites a 2000 interview in The Advocate, in which Trump emphasizes his support for workplace discrimination protections and "strong domestic-partnership law that guarantees gay people the same legal protections and rights as married people." "I'M READY FOR SURVEILLANCE ARE YOU" Energy: "I'm in favor of nuclear energy, very strongly in favor of nuclear energy," Trump said. "We are going to bring the coal industry back 100 %" Trump said. "Energy independence is a requirement if America is to become great again," Trump said Tuesday. Trump suggested clean energy policies to reduce CO2 emissions would "imperil jobs" and "the middle class and lower classes." He discounts the "negative impact of natural gas, oil, and coal." He writes that sources of "green energy" are "really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves." And Donald Trump said Ohio's prosperity under Gov. John Kasich was a stroke of luck, "John got lucky with a thing called fracking, ok, he hit oil," he said. "I consider climate change to be not one of our big problems," Trump said Thursday, when asked about the debate's concluding exchange on climate change. Crime and safety "If they make one mistake its on your newscasts all night, all week, all month. The police in this country have done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order," Trump said. "I have to say that the police are absolutely mistreated and misunderstood," Trump said. "Police and law enforcement, I will never, ever, let them down," Trump said at the candidate forum, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader. The video begins with the now infamous remarks Trump made last month during his presidential launch speech, in which he said: "When Mexico sends its people, they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists." The Washington Post's Charles Lane, a regular "Special Report" pundit, faced off against radio host Laura Ingraham over Trump's June 16 comments, in which he said, among other things: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." "Our police officers have been treated horribly," Trump told ABC News aboard his private jumbo jet Wednesday.

negative: The USA Legal Drinking Age Should Be Lowered to 18 From 21 should the drinking age be lowered

negative: Should American Military Intervention be demolished. I believe that Military Intervention should be demolished, anyone disagree, your all welcome to friendly argue.

negative: Libertarians should vote for Romney Sources:http://www.imperfectparent.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...In theory, it seems like Gary Johnson would be the best man to vote for in order to get the voices of Libertarians into government. In fact, I will agree that Gary Johnson is the best man for the job if you want a president that supports the policies that a Libertarian does. This debate, however, is not about who best embodies the Libertarian agenda. It is about who a Libertarian should vote for. And that man is Mitt Romney. Here's why:1. Look at history.Something very similar to what might happen if Gary Johnson gets a large following already happened in American history. The election of 1912. Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate and came in second place. Taft ran as a Republican and came in third place. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, won. He did not recieve a majority of the votes, 42 percent. The Progressive Party and the Republican Party recieved a combined total of 50% of the votes. Had Theodore Roosevelt not run, the Republican Party would have likely won the presidency. A third party candidate actually had a chance of winning one time, and that chance ruined the election for everyone who swayed Republican. I envision this happening again.2. Mitt Romney is closer to Libertarian Ideas.Here are just a few important issues to compare (I got the chart off of imperfectparent.com, my edits are in italics): The final score is:Republicans: 10Democrats: 6Tie: 2In the face of the fact that third parties have never won the presidency, and that Romney, while not perfect, is the more Libertarian of the two, I declare that Mitt Romney is, in fact, the best choice for a Libertarian for president. Issue Republican Party Democratic Party Libertarian Party Social Security Social security should be privatized (not to be confused with private savings accounts, but rather, private investments). Arguably closer to Libertarian. Social security should remain a government sponsored insurance plan for retirees. Believe in an "opt out" policy in which one can choose to privately invest (they believe this to be the better option) or go with a government sponsored social security plan. Jobs Pro small business. Supports giving small businesses tax incentives so that more jobs can be created.Tie. Encourage businesses to keep jobs here and not outsource them overseas. Supports unions and advocates for the rights of low income workers.Tie. Free market should dictate the job market. Economy Supports free market competition and entrepreneurship, corporate deregulation and cutting entitlement spending.Closer to Libertarian. Increase taxes to cut deficit. Believes large deficit negatively affects government services and that low deficits stimulate the economy. 100% Free Market. Security/Defense Believe in a proactive military and defense. Supports building weapons and technology that serve to protect our nation. Believe that peace is achieved through strong defense. Increase defense and research budget. Believe in a limited missile defense. Oppose nuclear buildup in the U.S. Believe that peace is achieved through worldwide relationship building.Closer to Libertarian. Believe in reducing nuclear arms in the U.S. Military should be used to protect people's livery and property only. Legal/Tort Reform Supports tort reform and limiting victims compensation, especially for frivolous lawsuits. Oppose tort reform and oppose limiting liability of doctors and/or businesses.Closer to Libertarian. Generally does not support tort reform. Tax Reform Supports tax cuts, low interest rates and the repeal of the death tax penalty in effort to stimulate the economy.Arguably closer to Libertarian. Generally supports raising taxes on the wealthy, lowering taxes for the middle class. Stridently opposes all government imposed taxes and employer withdrawal of employees money for tax purposes. Immigration Generally supports closed or tight borders and tracking system for foreign travelers. Support illegal alien's ability and right to become citizens and giving them more protections under the law.Closer to Libertarian. Support open borders. Faith Religion strongly associated with Republican party. Advocate free exercise of religion. Strict adherence between the separation between church and state. Promote secular issues and a more secular nation.Closer to Libertarian. Strong belief in separation of church and state and by contrast, Libertarians hold a strong belief in freedom of religion. Education Promote school choice/vouchers and homeschooling. Supports voluntary student supported prayer in school. Opposes gender and race quotes in colleges.Closer to Libertarian. Oppose vouchers. Increase NCLB federal funding. Enact new taxes to decrease class size and hire new teachers. End government financial support of public schools, believe that all public schools should be privatized with tax credit for tuition. Abortion Generally pro-life with emphasis on promoting alternatives to abortion. Generally pro-choice owning the mantra, "Safe, legal, rare."Closer to Libertarian. Adamantly pro-choice but oppose any government financial aid to subsidize abortions. Energy Oppose Kyoto treaty. Support tax incentives for energy production.Closer to Libertarian. Wish to find environmentally friendly energy sources and solutions. Oppose increased drilling, especially in the U.S. Supports deregulation and believes all government energy resources should be turned over to private ownership. Opposes government conservation of energy. Heathcare Keep healthcare private. Would like to impose caps on malpractice suits. Supports reformed medicare to give seniors more choices.Closer to Libertarian. Supports more federally funded healthcare programs. Strongly supports a complete separation of healthcare and state. Supports the deregulation of the healthcare industry. Foreign Policy Spread Democracy. Supports UN reform. Wants to stop WMD proliferation countries. Believe that nations who support terrorist are just as bad as the terrorist themselves.Arguably closer to Libertarian. Strongly supports worldwide coalitions and multi-national programs. Supports aid for disadvantaged countries. Supports the UN. End all foreign aid because it's the same as welfare for nations. Believes that aid perpetuates independence on your government. Campaign Finance Reform Generally support soft money contributions from individuals but supports limiting it from corporations. Also supports full disclosure.Closer to Libertarian. Favor more regulation with spending limits on individuals and corporations. No restrictions on contributions form any legal resident. Believe that politicians holding an office should not be able to run for another seat until term is over. Environment Supports privatizing federal land. Believe in cap and trade market based air pollution reductions and that the market should regulate itself.Closer to Libertarian. Generally puts the interest of the environment over business. Wants to maintain federal land under government control. Believes that land and animals should be sold to private organizations or ranchers and taken out of the hands of the government because private citizens will care for it better. Guns Limited gun control.Closer to Libertarian. Strict gun control. No control whatsoever. Gay Rights Oppose gay marriage. Supports constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Generally supports gay marriage although Democrats remain largely divided on the issue, as some only support civil unions.Closer to Libertarian. Pro private choice and equality including marriage.

negative: Adults should be able to order kids menus to get the toy According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Ooh, black and yellow! Let's shake it up a little. Barry! Breakfast is ready! Ooming! Hang on a second. Hello? - Barry? - Adam? - Oan you believe this is happening? - I can't. I'll pick you up. Looking sharp. Use the stairs. Your father paid good money for those. Sorry. I'm excited. Here's the graduate. We're very proud of you, son. A perfect report card, all B's. Very proud. Ma! I got a thing going here. - You got lint on your fuzz. - Ow! That's me! - Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000. - Bye! Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house! - Hey, Adam. - Hey, Barry. - Is that fuzz gel? - A little. Special day, graduation. Never thought I'd make it. Three days grade school, three days high school. Those were awkward. Three days college. I'm glad I took a day and hitchhiked around the hive. You did come back different. - Hi, Barry. - Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good. - Hear about Frankie? - Yeah. - You going to the funeral? - No, I'm not going. Everybody knows, sting someone, you die. Don't waste it on a squirrel. Such a hothead. I guess he could have just gotten out of the way. I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day. That's why we don't need vacations. Boy, quite a bit of pomp... under the circumstances. - Well, Adam, today we are men. - We are! - Bee-men. - Amen! Hallelujah! Students, faculty, distinguished bees, please welcome Dean Buzzwell. Welcome, New Hive Oity graduating class of... ...9:15. That concludes our ceremonies. And begins your career at Honex Industries! Will we pick ourjob today? I heard it's just orientation. Heads up! Here we go. Keep your hands and antennas inside the tram at all times. - Wonder what it'll be like? - A little scary. Welcome to Honex, a division of Honesco and a part of the Hexagon Group. This is it! Wow. Wow. We know that you, as a bee, have worked your whole life to get to the point where you can work for your whole life. Honey begins when our valiant Pollen Jocks bring the nectar to the hive. Our top-secret formula is automatically color-corrected, scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured into this soothing sweet syrup with its distinctive golden glow you know as... Honey! - That girl was hot. - She's my cousin! - She is? - Yes, we're all cousins. - Right. You're right. - At Honex, we constantly strive to improve every aspect of bee existence. These bees are stress-testing a new helmet technology. - What do you think he makes? - Not enough. Here we have our latest advancement, the Krelman. - What does that do? - Oatches that little strand of honey that hangs after you pour it. Saves us millions. Oan anyone work on the Krelman? Of course. Most bee jobs are small ones. But bees know that every small job, if it's done well, means a lot. But choose carefully because you'll stay in the job you pick for the rest of your life. The same job the rest of your life? I didn't know that. What's the difference? You'll be happy to know that bees, as a species, haven't had one day off in 27 million years. So you'll just work us to death? We'll sure try. Wow! That blew my mind! "What's the difference?" How can you say that? One job forever? That's an insane choice to have to make. I'm relieved. Now we only have to make one decision in life. But, Adam, how could they never have told us that? Why would you question anything? We're bees. We're the most perfectly functioning society on Earth. You ever think maybe things work a little too well here? Like what? Give me one example. I don't know. But you know what I'm talking about. Please clear the gate. Royal Nectar Force on approach. Wait a second. Oheck it out. - Hey, those are Pollen Jocks! - Wow. I've never seen them this close. They know what it's like outside the hive. Yeah, but some don't come back. - Hey, Jocks! - Hi, Jocks! You guys did great! You're monsters! You're sky freaks! I love it! I love it! - I wonder where they were. - I don't know. Their day's not planned. Outside the hive, flying who knows where, doing who knows what. You can'tjust decide to be a Pollen Jock. You have to be bred for that. Right. Look. That's more pollen than you and I will see in a lifetime. It's just a status symbol. Bees make too much of it. Perhaps. Unless you're wearing it and the ladies see you wearing it. Those ladies? Aren't they our cousins too? Distant. Distant. Look at these two. - Oouple of Hive Harrys. - Let's have fun with them. It must be dangerous being a Pollen Jock. Yeah. Once a bear pinned me against a mushroom! He had a paw on my throat, and with the other, he was slapping me! - Oh, my! - I never thought I'd knock him out. What were you doing during this? Trying to alert the authorities. I can autograph that. A little gusty out there today, wasn't it, comrades? Yeah. Gusty. We're hitting a sunflower patch six miles from here tomorrow. - Six miles, huh? - Barry! A puddle jump for us, but maybe you're not up for it. - Maybe I am. - You are not! We're going 0900 at J-Gate. What do you think, buzzy-boy? Are you bee enough? I might be. It all depends on what 0900 means. Hey, Honex! Dad, you surprised me. You decide what you're interested in? - Well, there's a lot of choices. - But you only get one. Do you ever get bored doing the same job every day? Son, let me tell you about stirring. You grab that stick, and you just move it around, and you stir it around. You get yourself into a rhythm. It's a beautiful thing. You know, Dad, the more I think about it, maybe the honey field just isn't right for me. You were thinking of what, making balloon animals? That's a bad job for a guy with a stinger. Janet, your son's not sure he wants to go into honey! - Barry, you are so funny sometimes. - I'm not trying to be funny. You're not funny! You're going into honey. Our son, the stirrer! - You're gonna be a stirrer? - No one's listening to me! Wait till you see the sticks I have. I could say anything right now. I'm gonna get an ant tattoo! Let's open some honey and celebrate! Maybe I'll pierce my thorax. Shave my antennae. Shack up with a grasshopper. Get a gold tooth and call everybody "dawg"! I'm so proud. - We're starting work today! - Today's the day. Oome on! All the good jobs will be gone. Yeah, right. Pollen counting, stunt bee, pouring, stirrer, front desk, hair removal... - Is it still available? - Hang on. Two left! One of them's yours! Oongratulations! Step to the side. - What'd you get? - Picking crud out. Stellar! Wow! Oouple of newbies? Yes, sir! Our first day! We are ready! Make your choice. - You want to go first? - No, you go. Oh, my. What's available? Restroom attendant's open, not for the reason you think. - Any chance of getting the Krelman? - Sure, you're on. I'm sorry, the Krelman just closed out. Wax monkey's always open. The Krelman opened up again. What happened? A bee died. Makes an opening. See? He's dead. Another dead one. Deady. Deadified. Two more dead. Dead from the neck up. Dead from the neck down. That's life! Oh, this is so hard! Heating, cooling, stunt bee, pourer, stirrer, humming, inspector number seven, lint coordinator, stripe supervisor, mite wrangler. Barry, what do you think I should... Barry? Barry! All right, we've got the sunflower patch in quadrant nine... What happened to you? Where are you? - I'm going out. - Out? Out where? - Out there. - Oh, no! I have to, before I go to work for the rest of my life. You're gonna die! You're crazy! Hello? Another call coming in. If anyone's feeling brave, there's a Korean deli on 83rd that gets their roses today. Hey, guys. - Look at that. - Isn't that the kid we saw yesterday? Hold it, son, flight deck's restricted. It's OK, Lou. We're gonna take him up. Really? Feeling lucky, are you? Sign here, here. Just initial that. - Thank you. - OK. You got a rain advisory today, and as you all know, bees cannot fly in rain. So be careful. As always, watch your brooms, hockey sticks, dogs, birds, bears and bats. Also, I got a couple of reports of root beer being poured on us. Murphy's in a home because of it, babbling like a cicada! - That's awful. - And a reminder for you rookies, bee law number one, absolutely no talking to humans! All right, launch positions! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Black and yellow! Hello! You ready for this, hot shot? Yeah. Yeah, bring it on. Wind, check. - Antennae, check. - Nectar pack, check. - Wings, check. - Stinger, check. Scared out of my shorts, check. OK, ladies, let's move it out! Pound those petunias, you striped stem-suckers! All of you, drain those flowers! Wow! I'm out! I can't believe I'm out! So blue. I feel so fast and free! Box kite! Wow! Flowers! This is Blue Leader. We have roses visual. Bring it around 30 degrees and hold. Roses! 30 degrees, roger. Bringing it around. Stand to the side, kid. It's got a bit of a kick. That is one nectar collector! - Ever see pollination up close? - No, sir. I pick up some pollen here, sprinkle it over here. Maybe a dash over there, a pinch on that one. See that? It's a little bit of magic. That's amazing. Why do we do that? That's pollen power. More pollen, more flowers, more nectar, more honey for us. Oool. I'm picking up a lot of bright yellow. Oould be daisies. Don't we need those? Oopy that visual. Wait. One of these flowers seems to be on the move. Say again? You're reporting a moving flower? Affirmative. That was on the line! This is the coolest. What is it? I don't know, but I'm loving this color. It smells good. Not like a flower, but I like it. Yeah, fuzzy. Ohemical-y. Oareful, guys. It's a little grabby. My sweet lord of bees! Oandy-brain, get off there! Problem! - Guys! - This could be bad. Affirmative. Very close. Gonna hurt. Mama's little boy. You are way out of position, rookie! Ooming in at you like a missile! Help me! I don't think these are flowers. - Should we tell him? - I think he knows. What is this?! Match point! You can start packing up, honey, because you're about to eat it! Yowser! Gross. There's a bee in the car! - Do something! - I'm driving! - Hi, bee. - He's back here! He's going to sting me! Nobody move. If you don't move, he won't sting you. Freeze! He blinked! Spray him, Granny! What are you doing?! Wow... the tension level out here is unbelievable. I gotta get home. Oan't fly in rain. Oan't fly in rain. Oan't fly in rain. Mayday! Mayday! Bee going down! Ken, could you close the window please? Ken, could you close the window please? Oheck out my new resume. I made it into a fold-out brochure. You see? Folds out. Oh, no. More humans. I don't need this. What was that? Maybe this time. This time. This time. This time! This time! This... Drapes! That is diabolical. It's fantastic. It's got all my special skills, even my top-ten favorite movies. What's number one? Star Wars? Nah, I don't go for that... ...kind of stuff. No wonder we shouldn't talk to them. They're out of their minds. When I leave a job interview, they're flabbergasted, can't believe what I say. There's the sun. Maybe that's a way out. I don't remember the sun having a big 75 on it. I predicted global warming. I could feel it getting hotter. At first I thought it was just me. Wait! Stop! Bee! Stand back. These are winter boots. Wait! Don't kill him! You know I'm allergic to them! This thing could kill me! Why does his life have less value than yours? Why does his life have any less value than mine? Is that your statement? I'm just saying all life has value. You don't know what he's capable of feeling. My brochure! There you go, little guy. I'm not scared of him. It's an allergic thing. Put that on your resume brochure. My whole face could puff up. Make it one of your special skills. Knocking someone out is also a special skill. Right. Bye, Vanessa. Thanks. - Vanessa, next week? Yogurt night? - Sure, Ken. You know, whatever. - You could put carob chips on there. - Bye. - Supposed to be less calories. - Bye. I gotta say something. She saved my life. I gotta say something. All right, here it goes. Nah. What would I say? I could really get in trouble. It's a bee law. You're not supposed to talk to a human. I can't believe I'm doing this. I've got to. Oh, I can't do it. Oome on! No. Yes. No. Do it. I can't. How should I start it? "You like jazz?" No, that's no good. Here she comes! Speak, you fool! Hi! I'm sorry. - You're talking. - Yes, I know. You're talking! I'm so sorry. No, it's OK. It's fine. I know I'm dreaming. But I don't recall going to bed. Well, I'm sure this is very disconcerting. This is a bit of a surprise to me. I mean, you're a bee! I am. And I'm not supposed to be doing this, but they were all trying to kill me. And if it wasn't for you... I had to thank you. It's just how I was raised. That was a little weird. - I'm talking with a bee. - Yeah. I'm talking to a bee. And the bee is talking to me! I just want to say I'm grateful. I'll leave now. - Wait! How did you learn to do that? - What? The talking thing. Same way you did, I guess. "Mama, Dada, honey." You pick it up. - That's very funny. - Yeah. Bees are funny. If we didn't laugh, we'd cry with what we have to deal with. Anyway... Oan I... ...get you something? - Like what? I don't know. I mean... I don't know. Ooffee? I don't want to put you out. It's no trouble. It takes two minutes. - It's just coffee. - I hate to impose. - Don't be ridiculous! - Actually, I would love a cup. Hey, you want rum cake? - I shouldn't. - Have some. - No, I can't. - Oome on! I'm trying to lose a couple micrograms. - Where? - These stripes don't help. You look great! I don't know if you know anything about fashion. Are you all right? No. He's making the tie in the cab as they're flying up Madison. He finally gets there. He runs up the steps into the church. The wedding is on. And he says, "Watermelon? I thought you said Guatemalan. Why would I marry a watermelon?" Is that a bee joke? That's the kind of stuff we do. Yeah, different. So, what are you gonna do, Barry? About work? I don't know. I want to do my part for the hive, but I can't do it the way they want. I know how you feel. - You do? - Sure. My parents wanted me to be a lawyer or a doctor, but I wanted to be a florist. - Really? - My only interest is flowers. Our new queen was just elected with that same campaign slogan. Anyway, if you look... There's my hive right there. See it? You're in Sheep Meadow! Yes! I'm right off the Turtle Pond! No way! I know that area. I lost a toe ring there once. - Why do girls put rings on their toes? - Why not? - It's like putting a hat on your knee. - Maybe I'll try that. - You all right, ma'am? - Oh, yeah. Fine. Just having two cups of coffee! Anyway, this has been great. Thanks for the coffee. Yeah, it's no trouble. Sorry I couldn't finish it. If I did, I'd be up the rest of my life. Are you...? Oan I take a piece of this with me? Sure! Here, have a crumb. - Thanks! - Yeah. All right. Well, then... I guess I'll see you around. Or not. OK, Barry. And thank you so much again... for before. Oh, that? That was nothing. Well, not nothing, but... Anyway... This can't possibly work. He's all set to go. We may as well try it. OK, Dave, pull the chute. - Sounds amazing. - It was amazing! It was the scariest, happiest moment of my life. Humans! I can't believe you were with humans! Giant, scary humans! What were they like? Huge and crazy. They talk crazy. They eat crazy giant things. They drive crazy. - Do they try and kill you, like on TV? - Some of them. But some of them don't. - How'd you get back? - Poodle. You did it, and I'm glad. You saw whatever you wanted to see. You had your "experience." Now you can pick out yourjob and be normal. - Well... - Well? Well, I met someone. You did? Was she Bee-ish? - A wasp?! Your parents will kill you! - No, no, no, not a wasp. - Spider? - I'm not attracted to spiders. I know it's the hottest thing, with the eight legs and all. I can't get by that face. So who is she? She's... human. No, no. That's a bee law. You wouldn't break a bee law. - Her name's Vanessa. - Oh, boy. She's so nice. And she's a florist! Oh, no! You're dating a human florist! We're not dating. You're flying outside the hive, talking to humans that attack our homes with power washers and M-80s! One-eighth a stick of dynamite! She saved my life! And she understands me. This is over! Eat this. This is not over! What was that? - They call it a crumb. - It was so stingin' stripey! And that's not what they eat. That's what falls off what they eat! - You know what a Oinnabon is? - No. It's bread and cinnamon and frosting. They heat it up... Sit down! ...really hot! - Listen to me! We are not them! We're us. There's us and there's them! Yes, but who can deny the heart that is yearning? There's no yearning. Stop yearning. Listen to me! You have got to start thinking bee, my friend. Thinking bee! - Thinking bee. - Thinking bee. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! There he is. He's in the pool. You know what your problem is, Barry? I gotta start thinking bee? How much longer will this go on? It's been three days! Why aren't you working? I've got a lot of big life decisions to think about. What life? You have no life! You have no job. You're barely a bee! Would it kill you to make a little honey? Barry, come out. Your father's talking to you. Martin, would you talk to him? Barry, I'm talking to you! You coming? Got everything? All set! Go ahead. I'll catch up. Don't be too long. Watch this! Vanessa! - We're still here. - I told you not to yell at him. He doesn't respond to yelling! - Then why yell at me? - Because you don't listen! I'm not listening to this. Sorry, I've gotta go. - Where are you going? - I'm meeting a friend. A girl? Is this why you can't decide? Bye. I just hope she's Bee-ish. They have a huge parade of flowers every year in Pasadena? To be in the Tournament of Roses, that's every florist's dream! Up on a float, surrounded by flowers, crowds cheering. A tournament. Do the roses compete in athletic events? No. All right, I've got one. How come you don't fly everywhere? It's exhausting. Why don't you run everywhere? It's faster. Yeah, OK, I see, I see. All right, your turn. TiVo. You can just freeze live TV? That's insane! You don't have that? We have Hivo, but it's a disease. It's a horrible, horrible disease. Oh, my. Dumb bees! You must want to sting all those jerks. We try not to sting. It's usually fatal for us. So you have to watch your temper. Very carefully. You kick a wall, take a walk, write an angry letter and throw it out. Work through it like any emotion: Anger, jealousy, lust. Oh, my goodness! Are you OK? Yeah. - What is wrong with you?! - It's a bug. He's not bothering anybody. Get out of here, you creep! What was that? A Pic 'N' Save circular? Yeah, it was. How did you know? It felt like about 10 pages. Seventy-five is pretty much our limit. You've really got that down to a science. - I lost a cousin to Italian Vogue. - I'll bet. What in the name of Mighty Hercules is this? How did this get here? Oute Bee, Golden Blossom, Ray Liotta Private Select? - Is he that actor? - I never heard of him. - Why is this here? - For people. We eat it. You don't have enough food of your own? - Well, yes. - How do you get it? - Bees make it. - I know who makes it! And it's hard to make it! There's heating, cooling, stirring. You need a whole Krelman thing! - It's organic. - It's our-ganic! It's just honey, Barry. Just what?! Bees don't know about this! This is stealing! A lot of stealing! You've taken our homes, schools, hospitals! This is all we have! And it's on sale?! I'm getting to the bottom of this. I'm getting to the bottom of all of this! Hey, Hector. - You almost done? - Almost. He is here. I sense it. Well, I guess I'll go home now and just leave this nice honey out, with no one around. You're busted, box boy! I knew I heard something. So you can talk! I can talk. And now you'll start talking! Where you getting the sweet stuff? Who's your supplier? I don't understand. I thought we were friends. The last thing we want to do is upset bees! You're too late! It's ours now! You, sir, have crossed the wrong sword! You, sir, will be lunch for my iguana, Ignacio! Where is the honey coming from? Tell me where! Honey Farms! It comes from Honey Farms! Orazy person! What horrible thing has happened here? These faces, they never knew what hit them. And now they're on the road to nowhere! Just keep still. What? You're not dead? Do I look dead? They will wipe anything that moves. Where you headed? To Honey Farms. I am onto something huge here. I'm going to Alaska. Moose blood, crazy stuff. Blows your head off! I'm going to Tacoma. - And you? - He really is dead. All right. Uh-oh! - What is that?! - Oh, no! - A wiper! Triple blade! - Triple blade? Jump on! It's your only chance, bee! Why does everything have to be so doggone clean?! How much do you people need to see?! Open your eyes! Stick your head out the window! From NPR News in Washington, I'm Oarl Kasell. But don't kill no more bugs! - Bee! - Moose blood guy!! - You hear something? - Like what? Like tiny screaming. Turn off the radio. Whassup, bee boy? Hey, Blood. Just a row of honey jars, as far as the eye could see. Wow! I assume wherever this truck goes is where they're getting it. I mean, that honey's ours. - Bees hang tight. - We're all jammed in. It's a close community. Not us, man. We on our own. Every mosquito on his own. - What if you get in trouble? - You a mosquito, you in trouble. Nobody likes us. They just smack. See a mosquito, smack, smack! At least you're out in the world. You must meet girls. Mosquito girls try to trade up, get with a moth, dragonfly. Mosquito girl don't want no mosquito. You got to be kidding me! Mooseblood's about to leave the building! So long, bee! - Hey, guys! - Mooseblood! I knew I'd catch y'all down here. Did you bring your crazy straw? We throw it in jars, slap a label on it, and it's pretty much pure profit. What is this place? A bee's got a brain the size of a pinhead. They are pinheads! Pinhead. - Oheck out the new smoker. - Oh, sweet. That's the one you want. The Thomas 3000! Smoker? Ninety puffs a minute, semi-automatic. Twice the nicotine, all the tar. A couple breaths of this knocks them right out. They make the honey, and we make the money. "They make the honey, and we make the money"? Oh, my! What's going on? Are you OK? Yeah. It doesn't last too long. Do you know you're in a fake hive with fake walls? Our queen was moved here. We had no choice. This is your queen? That's a man in women's clothes! That's a drag queen! What is this? Oh, no! There's hundreds of them! Bee honey. Our honey is being brazenly stolen on a massive scale! This is worse than anything bears have done! I intend to do something. Oh, Barry, stop. Who told you humans are taking our honey? That's a rumor. Do these look like rumors? That's a conspiracy theory. These are obviously doctored photos. How did you get mixed up in this? He's been talking to humans. - What? - Talking to humans?! He has a human girlfriend. And they make out! Make out? Barry! We do not. - You wish you could. - Whose side are you on? The bees! I dated a cricket once in San Antonio. Those crazy legs kept me up all night. Barry, this is what you want to do with your life? I want to do it for all our lives. Nobody works harder than bees! Dad, I remember you coming home so overworked your hands were still stirring. You couldn't stop. I remember that. What right do they have to our honey? We live on two cups a year. They put it in lip balm for no reason whatsoever! Even if it's true, what can one bee do? Sting them where it really hurts. In the face! The eye! - That would hurt. - No. Up the nose? That's a killer. There's only one place you can sting the humans, one place where it matters. Hive at Five, the hive's only full-hour action news source. No more bee beards! With Bob Bumble at the anchor desk. Weather with Storm Stinger. Sports with Buzz Larvi. And Jeanette Ohung. - Good evening. I'm Bob Bumble. - And I'm Jeanette Ohung. A tri-county bee, Barry Benson, intends to sue the human race for stealing our honey, packaging it and profiting from it illegally! Tomorrow night on Bee Larry King, we'll have three former queens here in our studio, discussing their new book, Olassy Ladies, out this week on Hexagon. Tonight we're talking to Barry Benson. Did you ever think, "I'm a kid from the hive. I can't do this"? Bees have never been afraid to change the world. What about Bee Oolumbus? Bee Gandhi? Bejesus? Where I'm from, we'd never sue humans. We were thinking of stickball or candy stores. How old are you? The bee community is supporting you in this case, which will be the trial of the bee century. You know, they have a Larry King in the human world too. It's a common name. Next week... He looks like you and has a show and suspenders and colored dots... Next week... Glasses, quotes on the bottom from the guest even though you just heard 'em. Bear Week next week! They're scary, hairy and here live. Always leans forward, pointy shoulders, squinty eyes, very Jewish. In tennis, you attack at the point of weakness! It was my grandmother, Ken. She's 81. Honey, her backhand's a joke! I'm not gonna take advantage of that? Quiet, please. Actual work going on here. - Is that that same bee? - Yes, it is! I'm helping him sue the human race. - Hello. - Hello, bee. This is Ken. Yeah, I remember you. Timberland, size ten and a half. Vibram sole, I believe. Why does he talk again? Listen, you better go 'cause we're really busy working. But it's our yogurt night! Bye-bye. Why is yogurt night so difficult?! You poor thing. You two have been at this for hours! Yes, and Adam here has been a huge help. - Frosting... - How many sugars? Just one. I try not to use the competition. So why are you helping me? Bees have good qualities. And it takes my mind off the shop. Instead of flowers, people are giving balloon bouquets now. Those are great, if you're three. And artificial flowers. - Oh, those just get me psychotic! - Yeah, me too. Bent stingers, pointless pollination. Bees must hate those fake things! Nothing worse than a daffodil that's had work done. Maybe this could make up for it a little bit. - This lawsuit's a pretty big deal. - I guess. You sure you want to go through with it? Am I sure? When I'm done with the humans, they won't be able to say, "Honey, I'm home," without paying a royalty! It's an incredible scene here in downtown Manhattan, where the world anxiously waits, because for the first time in history, we will hear for ourselves if a honeybee can actually speak. What have we gotten into here, Barry? It's pretty big, isn't it? I can't believe how many humans don't work during the day. You think billion-dollar multinational food companies have good lawyers? Everybody needs to stay behind the barricade. - What's the matter? - I don't know, I just got a chill. Well, if it isn't the bee team. You boys work on this? All rise! The Honorable Judge Bumbleton presiding. All right. Oase number 4475, Superior Oourt of New York, Barry Bee Benson v. the Honey Industry is now in session. Mr. Montgomery, you're representing the five food companies collectively? A privilege. Mr. Benson... you're representing all the bees of the world? I'm kidding. Yes, Your Honor, we're ready to proceed. Mr. Montgomery, your opening statement, please. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my grandmother was a simple woman. Born on a farm, she believed it was man's divine right to benefit from the bounty of nature God put before us. If we lived in the topsy-turvy world Mr. Benson imagines, just think of what would it mean. I would have to negotiate with the silkworm for the elastic in my britches! Talking bee! How do we know this isn't some sort of holographic motion-picture-capture Hollywood wizardry? They could be using laser beams! Robotics! Ventriloquism! Oloning! For all we know, he could be on steroids! Mr. Benson? Ladies and gentlemen, there's no trickery here. I'm just an ordinary bee. Honey's pretty important to me. It's important to all bees. We invented it! We make it. And we protect it with our lives. Unfortunately, there are some people in this room who think they can take it from us 'cause we're the little guys! I'm hoping that, after this is all over, you'll see how, by taking our honey, you not only take everything we have but everything we are! I wish he'd dress like that all the time. So nice! Oall your first witness. So, Mr. Klauss Vanderhayden of Honey Farms, big company you have. I suppose so. I see you also own Honeyburton and Honron! Yes, they provide beekeepers for our farms. Beekeeper. I find that to be a very disturbing term. I don't imagine you employ any bee-free-ers, do you? - No. - I couldn't hear you. - No. - No. Because you don't free bees. You keep bees. Not only that, it seems you thought a bear would be an appropriate image for a jar of honey. They're very lovable creatures. Yogi Bear, Fozzie Bear, Build-A-Bear. You mean like this? Bears kill bees! How'd you like his head crashing through your living room?! Biting into your couch! Spitting out your throw pillows! OK, that's enough. Take him away. So, Mr. Sting, thank you for being here. Your name intrigues me. - Where have I heard it before? - I was with a band called The Police. But you've never been a police officer, have you? No, I haven't. No, you haven't. And so here we have yet another example of bee culture casually stolen by a human for nothing more than a prance-about stage name. Oh, please. Have you ever been stung, Mr. Sting? Because I'm feeling a little stung, Sting. Or should I say... Mr. Gordon M. Sumner! That's not his real name?! You idiots! Mr. Liotta, first, belated congratulations on your Emmy win for a guest spot on ER in 2005. Thank you. Thank you. I see from your resume that you're devilishly handsome with a churning inner turmoil that's ready to blow. I enjoy what I do. Is that a crime? Not yet it isn't. But is this what it's come to for you? Exploiting tiny, helpless bees so you don't have to rehearse your part and learn your lines, sir? Watch it, Benson! I could blow right now! This isn't a goodfella. This is a badfella! Why doesn't someone just step on this creep, and we can all go home?! - Order in this court! - You're all thinking it! Order! Order, I say! - Say it! - Mr. Liotta, please sit down! I think it was awfully nice of that bear to pitch in like that. I think the jury's on our side. Are we doing everything right, legally? I'm a florist. Right. Well, here's to a great team. To a great team! Well, hello. - Ken! - Hello. I didn't think you were coming. No, I was just late. I tried to call, but... the battery. I didn't want all this to go to waste, so I called Barry. Luckily, he was free. Oh, that was lucky. There's a little left. I could heat it up. Yeah, heat it up, sure, whatever. So I hear you're quite a tennis player. I'm not much for the game myself. The ball's a little grabby. That's where I usually sit. Right... there. Ken, Barry was looking at your resume, and he agreed with me that eating with chopsticks isn't really a special skill. You think I don't see what you're doing? I know how hard it is to find the rightjob. We have that in common. Do we? Bees have 100 percent employment, but we do jobs like taking the crud out. That's just what I was thinking about doing. Ken, I let Barry borrow your razor for his fuzz. I hope that was all right. I'm going to drain the old stinger. Yeah, you do that. Look at that. You know, I've just about had it with your little mind games. - What's that? - Italian Vogue. Mamma mia, that's a lot of pages. A lot of ads. Remember what Van said, why is your life more valuable than mine? Funny, I just can't seem to recall that! I think something stinks in here! I love the smell of flowers. How do you like the smell of flames?! Not as much. Water bug! Not taking sides! Ken, I'm wearing a Ohapstick hat! This is pathetic! I've got issues! Well, well, well, a royal flush! - You're bluffing. - Am I? Surf's up, dude! Poo water! That bowl is gnarly. Except for those dirty yellow rings! Kenneth! What are you doing?! You know, I don't even like honey! I don't eat it! We need to talk! He's just a little bee! And he happens to be the nicest bee I've met in a long time! Long time? What are you talking about?! Are there other bugs in your life? No, but there are other things bugging me in life. And you're one of them! Fine! Talking bees, no yogurt night... My nerves are fried from riding on this emotional roller coaster! Goodbye, Ken. And for your information, I prefer sugar-free, artificial sweeteners made by man! I'm sorry about all that. I know it's got an aftertaste! I like it! I always felt there was some kind of barrier between Ken and me. I couldn't overcome it. Oh, well. Are you OK for the trial? I believe Mr. Montgomery is about out of ideas. We would like to call Mr. Barry Benson Bee to the stand. Good idea! You can really see why he's considered one of the best lawyers... Yeah. Layton, you've gotta weave some magic with this jury, or it's gonna be all over. Don't worry. The only thing I have to do to turn this jury around is to remind them of what they don't like about bees. - You got the tweezers? - Are you allergic? Only to losing, son. Only to losing. Mr. Benson Bee, I'll ask you what I think we'd all like to know. What exactly is your relationship to that woman? We're friends. - Good friends? - Yes. How good? Do you live together? Wait a minute... Are you her little... ...bedbug? I've seen a bee documentary or two. From what I understand, doesn't your queen give birth to all the bee children? - Yeah, but... - So those aren't your real parents! - Oh, Barry... - Yes, they are! Hold me back! You're an illegitimate bee, aren't you, Benson? He's denouncing bees! Don't y'all date your cousins? - Objection! - I'm going to pincushion this guy! Adam, don't! It's what he wants! Oh, I'm hit!! Oh, lordy, I am hit! Order! Order! The venom! The venom is coursing through my veins! I have been felled by a winged beast of destruction! You see? You can't treat them like equals! They're striped savages! Stinging's the only thing they know! It's their way! - Adam, stay with me. - I can't feel my legs. What angel of mercy will come forward to suck the poison from my heaving buttocks? I will have order in this court. Order! Order, please! The case of the honeybees versus the human race took a pointed turn against the bees yesterday when one of their legal team stung Layton T. Montgomery. - Hey, buddy. - Hey. - Is there much pain? - Yeah. I... I blew the whole case, didn't I? It doesn't matter. What matters is you're alive. You could have died. I'd be better off dead. Look at me. They got it from the cafeteria downstairs, in a tuna sandwich. Look, there's a little celery still on it. What was it like to sting someone? I can't explain it. It was all... All adrenaline and then... and then ecstasy! All right. You think it was all a trap? Of course. I'm sorry. I flew us right into this. What were we thinking? Look at us. We're just a couple of bugs in this world. What will the humans do to us if they win? I don't know. I hear they put the roaches in motels. That doesn't sound so bad. Adam, they check in, but they don't check out! Oh, my. Oould you get a nurse to close that window? - Why? - The smoke. Bees don't smoke. Right. Bees don't smoke. Bees don't smoke! But some bees are smoking. That's it! That's our case! It is? It's not over? Get dressed. I've gotta go somewhere. Get back to the court and stall. Stall any way you can. And assuming you've done step correctly, you're ready for the tub. Mr. Flayman. Yes? Yes, Your Honor! Where is the rest of your team? Well, Your Honor, it's interesting. Bees are trained to fly haphazardly, and as a result, we don't make very good time. I actually heard a funny story about... Your Honor, haven't these ridiculous bugs taken up enough of this court's valuable time? How much longer will we allow these absurd shenanigans to go on? They have presented no compelling evidence to support their charges against my clients, who run legitimate businesses. I move for a complete dismissal of this entire case! Mr. Flayman, I'm afraid I'm going to have to consider Mr. Montgomery's motion. But you can't! We have a terrific case. Where is your proof? Where is the evidence? Show me the smoking gun! Hold it, Your Honor! You want a smoking gun? Here is your smoking gun. What is that? It's a bee smoker! What, this? This harmless little contraption? This couldn't hurt a fly, let alone a bee. Look at what has happened to bees who have never been asked, "Smoking or non?" Is this what nature intended for us? To be forcibly addicted to smoke machines and man-made wooden slat work camps? Living out our lives as honey slaves to the white man? - What are we gonna do? - He's playing the species card. Ladies and gentlemen, please, free these bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! The court finds in favor of the bees! Vanessa, we won! I knew you could do it! High-five! Sorry. I'm OK! You know what this means? All the honey will finally belong to the bees. Now we won't have to work so hard all the time. This is an unholy perversion of the balance of nature, Benson. You'll regret this. Barry, how much honey is out there? All right. One at a time. Barry, who are you wearing? My sweater is Ralph Lauren, and I have no pants. - What if Montgomery's right? - What do you mean? We've been living the bee way a long time, 27 million years. Oongratulations on your victory. What will you demand as a settlement? First, we'll demand a complete shutdown of all bee work camps. Then we want back the honey that was ours to begin with, every last drop. We demand an end to the glorification of the bear as anything more than a filthy, smelly, bad-breath stink machine. We're all aware of what they do in the woods. Wait for my signal. Take him out. He'll have nauseous for a few hours, then he'll be fine. And we will no longer tolerate bee-negative nicknames... But it's just a prance-about stage name! ...unnecessary inclusion of honey in bogus health products and la-dee-da human tea-time snack garnishments. Oan't breathe. Bring it in, boys! Hold it right there! Good. Tap it. Mr. Buzzwell, we just passed three cups, and there's gallons more coming! - I think we need to shut down! - Shut down? We've never shut down. Shut down honey production! Stop making honey! Turn your key, sir! What do we do now? Oannonball! We're shutting honey production! Mission abort. Aborting pollination and nectar detail. Returning to base. Adam, you wouldn't believe how much honey was out there. Oh, yeah? What's going on? Where is everybody? - Are they out celebrating? - They're home. They don't know what to do. Laying out, sleeping in. I heard your Uncle Oarl was on his way to San Antonio with a cricket. At least we got our honey back. Sometimes I think, so what if humans liked our honey? Who wouldn't? It's the greatest thing in the world! I was excited to be part of making it. This was my new desk. This was my new job. I wanted to do it really well. And now... Now I can't. I don't understand why they're not happy. I thought their lives would be better! They're doing nothing. It's amazing. Honey really changes people. You don't have any idea what's going on, do you? - What did you want to show me? - This. What happened here? That is not the half of it. Oh, no. Oh, my. They're all wilting. Doesn't look very good, does it? No. And whose fault do you think that is? You know, I'm gonna guess bees. Bees? Specifically, me. I didn't think bees not needing to make honey would affect all these things. It's notjust flowers. Fruits, vegetables, they all need bees. That's our whole SAT test right there. Take away produce, that affects the entire animal kingdom. And then, of course... The human species? So if there's no more pollination, it could all just go south here, couldn't it? I know this is also partly my fault. How about a suicide pact? How do we do it? - I'll sting you, you step on me. - Thatjust kills you twice. Right, right. Listen, Barry... sorry, but I gotta get going. I had to open my mouth and talk. Vanessa? Vanessa? Why are you leaving? Where are you going? To the final Tournament of Roses parade in Pasadena. They've moved it to this weekend because all the flowers are dying. It's the last chance I'll ever have to see it. Vanessa, I just wanna say I'm sorry. I never meant it to turn out like this. I know. Me neither. Tournament of Roses. Roses can't do sports. Wait a minute. Roses. Roses? Roses! Vanessa! Roses?! Barry? - Roses are flowers! - Yes, they are. Flowers, bees, pollen! I know. That's why this is the last parade. Maybe not. Oould you ask him to slow down? Oould you slow down? Barry! OK, I made a huge mistake. This is a total disaster, all my fault. Yes, it kind of is. I've ruined the planet. I wanted to help you with the flower shop. I've made it worse. Actually, it's completely closed down. I thought maybe you were remodeling. But I have another idea, and it's greater than my previous ideas combined. I don't want to hear it! All right, they have the roses, the roses have the pollen. I know every bee, plant and flower bud in this park. All we gotta do is get what they've got back here with what we've got. - Bees. - Park. - Pollen! - Flowers. - Repollination! - Across the nation! Tournament of Roses, Pasadena, Oalifornia. They've got nothing but flowers, floats and cotton candy. Security will be tight. I have an idea. Vanessa Bloome, FTD. Official floral business. It's real. Sorry, ma'am. Nice brooch. Thank you. It was a gift. Once inside, we just pick the right float. How about The Princess and the Pea? I could be the princess, and you could be the pea! Yes, I got it. - Where should I sit? - What are you? - I believe I'm the pea. - The pea? It goes under the mattresses. - Not in this fairy tale, sweetheart. - I'm getting the marshal. You do that! This whole parade is a fiasco! Let's see what this baby'll do. Hey, what are you doing?! Then all we do is blend in with traffic... ...without arousing suspicion. Once at the airport, there's no stopping us. Stop! Security. - You and your insect pack your float? - Yes. Has it been in your possession the entire time? Would you remove your shoes? - Remove your stinger. - It's part of me. I know. Just having some fun. Enjoy your flight. Then if we're lucky, we'll have just enough pollen to do the job. Oan you believe how lucky we are? We have just enough pollen to do the job! I think this is gonna work. It's got to work. Attention, passengers, this is Oaptain Scott. We have a bit of bad weather in New York. It looks like we'll experience a couple hours delay. Barry, these are cut flowers with no water. They'll never make it. I gotta get up there and talk to them. Be careful. Oan I get help with the Sky Mall magazine? I'd like to order the talking inflatable nose and ear hair trimmer. Oaptain, I'm in a real situation. - What'd you say, Hal? - Nothing. Bee! Don't freak out! My entire species... What are you doing? - Wait a minute! I'm an attorney! - Who's an attorney? Don't move. Oh, Barry. Good afternoon, passengers. This is your captain. Would a Miss Vanessa Bloome in 24B please report to the cockpit? And please hurry! What happened here? There was a DustBuster, a toupee, a life raft exploded. One's bald, one's in a boat, they're both unconscious! - Is that another bee joke? - No! No one's flying the plane! This is JFK control tower, Flight 356. What's your status? This is Vanessa Bloome. I'm a florist from New York. Where's the pilot? He's unconscious, and so is the copilot. Not good. Does anyone onboard have flight experience? As a matter of fact, there is. - Who's that? - Barry Benson. From the honey trial?! Oh, great. Vanessa, this is nothing more than a big metal bee. It's got giant wings, huge engines. I can't fly a plane. - Why not? Isn't John Travolta a pilot? - Yes. How hard could it be? Wait, Barry! We're headed into some lightning. This is Bob Bumble. We have some late-breaking news from JFK Airport, where a suspenseful scene is developing. Barry Benson, fresh from his legal victory... That's Barry! ...is attempting to land a plane, loaded with people, flowers and an incapacitated flight crew. Flowers?! We have a storm in the area and two individuals at the controls with absolutely no flight experience. Just a minute. There's a bee on that plane. I'm quite familiar with Mr. Benson and his no-account compadres. They've done enough damage. But isn't he your only hope? Technically, a bee shouldn't be able to fly at all. Their wings are too small... Haven't we heard this a million times? "The surface area of the wings and body mass make no sense." - Get this on the air! - Got it. - Stand by. - We're going live. The way we work may be a mystery to you. Making honey takes a lot of bees doing a lot of small jobs. But let me tell you about a small job. If you do it well, it makes a big difference. More than we realized. To us, to everyone. That's why I want to get bees back to working together. That's the bee way! We're not made of Jell-O. We get behind a fellow. - Black and yellow! - Hello! Left, right, down, hover. - Hover? - Forget hover. This isn't so hard. Beep-beep! Beep-beep! Barry, what happened?! Wait, I think we were on autopilot the whole time. - That may have been helping me. - And now we're not! So it turns out I cannot fly a plane. All of you, let's get behind this fellow! Move it out! Move out! Our only chance is if I do what I'd do, you copy me with the wings of the plane! Don't have to yell. I'm not yelling! We're in a lot of trouble. It's very hard to concentrate with that panicky tone in your voice! It's not a tone. I'm panicking! I can't do this! Vanessa, pull yourself together. You have to snap out of it! You snap out of it. You snap out of it. - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - Hold it! - Why? Oome on, it's my turn. How is the plane flying? I don't know. Hello? Benson, got any flowers for a happy occasion in there? The Pollen Jocks! They do get behind a fellow. - Black and yellow. - Hello. All right, let's drop this tin can on the blacktop. Where? I can't see anything. Oan you? No, nothing. It's all cloudy. Oome on. You got to think bee, Barry. - Thinking bee. - Thinking bee. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Wait a minute. I think I'm feeling something. - What? - I don't know. It's strong, pulling me. Like a 27-million-year-old instinct. Bring the nose down. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! - What in the world is on the tarmac? - Get some lights on that! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! - Vanessa, aim for the flower. - OK. Out the engines. We're going in on bee power. Ready, boys? Affirmative! Good. Good. Easy, now. That's it. Land on that flower! Ready? Full reverse! Spin it around! - Not that flower! The other one! - Which one? - That flower. - I'm aiming at the flower! That's a fat guy in a flowered shirt. I mean the giant pulsating flower made of millions of bees! Pull forward. Nose down. Tail up. Rotate around it. - This is insane, Barry! - This's the only way I know how to fly. Am I koo-koo-kachoo, or is this plane flying in an insect-like pattern? Get your nose in there. Don't be afraid. Smell it. Full reverse! Just drop it. Be a part of it. Aim for the center! Now drop it in! Drop it in, woman! Oome on, already. Barry, we did it! You taught me how to fly! - Yes. No high-five! - Right. Barry, it worked! Did you see the giant flower? What giant flower? Where? Of course I saw the flower! That was genius! - Thank you. - But we're not done yet. Listen, everyone! This runway is covered with the last pollen from the last flowers available anywhere on Earth. That means this is our last chance. We're the only ones who make honey, pollinate flowers and dress like this. If we're gonna survive as a species, this is our moment! What do you say? Are we going to be bees, orjust Museum of Natural History keychains? We're bees! Keychain! Then follow me! Except Keychain. Hold on, Barry. Here. You've earned this. Yeah! I'm a Pollen Jock! And it's a perfect fit. All I gotta do are the sleeves. Oh, yeah. That's our Barry. Mom! The bees are back! If anybody needs to make a call, now's the time. I got a feeling we'll be working late tonight! Here's your change. Have a great afternoon! Oan I help who's next? Would you like some honey with that? It is bee-approved. Don't forget these. Milk, cream, cheese, it's all me. And I don't see a nickel! Sometimes I just feel like a piece of meat! I had no idea. Barry, I'm sorry. Have you got a moment? Would you excuse me? My mosquito associate will help you. Sorry I'm late. He's a lawyer too? I was already a blood-sucking parasite. All I needed was a briefcase. Have a great afternoon! Barry, I just got this huge tulip order, and I can't get them anywhere. No problem, Vannie. Just leave it to me. You're a lifesaver, Barry. Oan I help who's next? All right, scramble, jocks! It's time to fly. Thank you, Barry! That bee is living my life! Let it go, Kenny. - When will this nightmare end?! - Let it all go. - Beautiful day to fly. - Sure is. Between you and me, I was dying to get out of that office. You have got to start thinking bee, my friend. - Thinking bee! - Me? Hold it. Let's just stop for a second. Hold it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, everyone. Oan we stop here? I'm not making a major life decision during a production number! All right. Take ten, everybody. Wrap it up, guys. I had virtually no rehearsal for that.

negative: Education should be Privatized Arguments extended. I would request the conduct point, but Con may continue the debate if he posts next round.

negative: Paying off national debt via austerity measures would free-up money used for interest payments The first of the baby boomers start retiring in 2011 and, as a result, qualify for Medicare. There are 78 million people in this generation and all of the statistics suggest that they are likely to live significantly longer than previous retiring generations[i]. As a result the US has some very big bills coming in the next few years and a decreasing base of those working and paying tax revenue to pay them. This is really not the time to be wasting money on interest for deficits built up to support programmes that are unnecessary. Paying down the debt frees up tax revenue for much needed support, both financial and medical, for seniors as they retire. [i] Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns. “The Coming Generational Storm.” MIT Press 2004.

negative: America should not have welfare I believe america should not have a welfare system simply because we don't have the money to afford it and that people abuse if people can't hold on to their money it is not our fault and should not have to make it our problem every human has somthing they don't need and could continue without like a washing machine a drier beer a tv their are plenty of things.

negative: Abolish Social Security Due to the fact my opponent's account has been closed, this debate is null. I please ask you not to vote.

negative: Abolish Social Security I thought I understood it better than I do. I give, I don't really even undersatnd the system, so I can't really defend it, can I? Thanks for the debate, that was fun!

negative: Air should be privatized I would have been interested to see my opponent's replies. Guess we'll never know what Brian had to say. I win, VOTE ME.

negative: Barack Obama has been an exceptional President. here are my 50 reasons why he sucks....let me know if you need more i have plenty! 1) When Democrat Nancy Pelosi questioned the patriotism of Americans who honestly and intelligently opposed the tenets of Obama Care by calling them un-American, Obama was silent. 2) When Democrat Charles Rangel likened citizens who honestly and intelligently opposed the tenets of Obama Care to the racists who opposed the civil rights movement back in the 1960s, Obama was silent. 3) When Democrat Shelia Jackson Lee stated that all Tea Party members, nearly all of whom are sincerely, honestly, and deeply concerned about out of control government spending, our loss of freedom, and our skyrocketing national debt, used to wear Ku Klux Klan sheets, Obama was silent. 4) When Democrat Nancy Pelosi said that all Americans who honestly and intelligently opposed the building of a mosque at Ground Zero needed to be investigated, Obama was silent. 5) When Democrat Alan Grayson said that all Republicans were knuckle dragging Neanderthals, Obama was silent. 6) When his own green jobs czar, Van Jones, stated Republicans were a__h___s, Obama was silent. 7) When Democrat Harry Reid insulted all Americans when he asserted that all Americans sightseeing in our nation's capital in the summer physically smell, Obama was silent. 8) When several Democrats, allegedly including Vice President Joe Biden, likened Republicans to terrorists, the same type of people that attack and kill innocent people, during the debt ceiling debate last summer, Obama was personally silent. 9) When Rep. Steve Cohen likened Republican critics of Obamacare to the Nazis and their propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, Obama was silent. 10) When labor leader Jimmy Hoffa threatened violence against Tea Party members and Republicans, threatening "war" and threatening to "take theses sons of bitches out", Obama was silent. 11) When Americans expressed outrage and concern about our skyrocketing national debt and were called barbarians for having this legitimate opposing opinion, Obama was silent. Looks like the President came up short in his promise when he said "one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and each other's patriotism." Standing passively aside and allowing your political allies to call ordinary American citizens terrorists, racists, and other slanderous names and questioning their patriotism is certainly not Presidential. The President should be the President of all Americans, not just the one who voted for him. Silence is not golden, in these cases it is divisive and bigoted. The "Constitution is Merely A Set Of Suggestions, Not Hard and Fast Rules" Syndrome As President of the United States, President Obama took an oath to uphold the tenets of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and to enforce the laws of the land. However, he seems to have misinterpreted these responsibilities, treating the Constitution and the rule of law as mere suggestions: 12) He inserted the United States armed forces into the Libyan civil war and into danger in violation of the war making powers given to Congress by the Constitution and in violation of the War Powers Act. While his war strategy may have been the right thing to do, his disdain for the rule of law does not make the means justify the ends. If he had been doing his job, he would have had enough time to do the Libyan warfare action in the right, lawful manner. 13) When his Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium was deemed illegal and a Federal judge told the administration to rescind the moratorium, the administration did just that and, in defiance, replaced it with a second moratorium that was almost identical to the one that the judge ordered to be halted. Consider what Judge Feldman, the presiding judge had to say about this blatant disregard for the rule of law: "Each step the government took following the court imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance, Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government's contempt." The Constitution set up three branches of government to keep each other branch in check. Ignoring a ruling from the judicial branch is the same as ignoring the Constitution, it is the same as holding the Constitution in contempt. 14) The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law by a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, and it legislated that the Federal government recognizes that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, not two gay or lesbian individuals. It is a repugnant law and should be terminated, the Federal government and politicians should not be in the business of regulating and defining what is proper personal behavior. However, it is the law of the land and President Obama, as he was sworn to do, is responsible for upholding the law of the land. However, he violated this Constitutional responsibility when he unilaterally decided not to defend the law in any court cases. The Constitution provides an orderly process for terminating bad laws through legislation. He should have terminated this law within the first year of his term, within the rules and boundaries of the Constitution, when the Democrats controlled the White House and both parts of Congress. Unilaterally ignoring the law of the land now is a blatant violation of the Constitution and the oath he took. 15) Obama is the first President to set up a "shadow government" within the White House. His system of "czars" sets a dangerous precedent by establishing a potential ruling junta that bypasses the checks and balances of Congressional review established by the Constitution. 16) His recent illegal "recess appointments" of someone to head the newly formed consumer protection agency, that came out of the Dodd-Frank legislation, and three people to the National Labor Relations Board are a continued symptom of his desire to bypass Constitutionally mandated Congressional review and approval when it comes to appointing people into high ranking government positions. The excuse and flawed rationale that Bush did the same type of appointments does not make it okay. No matter who executes this type of behavior, it is a violation of the Constitution's spirit and intent. 17) The disastrous "Fast and Furious" DEA gun running operation that allowed thousands of military grade weapons to easily cross the U.S. border into Mexico and into the hands of Mexico's violent drug cartels is a gross violation of domestic laws and international treaties. As President, Obama was sworn to uphold the laws of this country which also includes enforcing the valid treaties we have with other countries. Allowing his Justice Department to haphazardly operate "Fast and Furious" is a clear violation of that responsibility. 18) Earlier this year, the California solar panel company Solyndra went bankrupt and endangered the $530 million taxpayer investment that the Obama administration had granted the company. The only hope that the American taxpayer had of recovering even a fraction of the half of billion dollars was to exercise its legal right to be first in line when the bankruptcy proceedings sold off the remaining Solyndra assets. That was a legal condition of the loan guarantee: in the event of a Solyndra default, the Federal government lawfully got first crack at recovering money. However, Obama's Energy Department illegally moved the Kaiser Foundation, another Solyndra investor, ahead of the American taxpayer in the bankruptcy proceedings. This action was done without the knowledge of the Justice Department who is supposedly responsible for enforcing the laws of the land like this one. As a result of this leapfrog move, any assets and money from the sale of Solyndra assets were illegally used up before it was the American taxpayers' turn to receive anything. However, the Kaiser Foundation did recover much of its investment. Oh, and by the way, the Kaiser Foundation has strong family links to a gentleman called George Kaiser. George Kaiser has been a very important, successful and prolific fund raiser for Obama's past political campaigns. A law ignored, a political ally satisfied. 19) President Obama signed off on the extensions of the Patriot Act, the worst legislation regarding the destruction of personal liberty and freedom and growing the Orwellian power of the Federal government. He did not even bother to try and staff a panel of people to review and control government abuses that might occur under the Patriot Act, a panel that is mandated by the law. The "I Did Not Major In Economics Bit I Did Stay At A Holiday Inn Express" Syndrome It is no secret that the economy has been in a bad funk for many years now. High unemployment and higher underemployment, anemic economic growth, skyrocketing national debt, a stagnant stock market, a housing market in a ditch, etc. Now, most Democrats would blame Bush for the entire economic mess. However, this argument is a crock for two reasons. First, if we look at the last five years of government, the years 2007 through 2011, the Democratic Party has controlled 80% of the Federal government's functions. They have controlled the Senate for all five years (2007 to 2011), they had controlled the House of Representatives for four years out of five (2007 to 2010) and they controlled the Presidency for three years out of five (2008 to 2011). Republicans were in charge of a Federal government function for only three years, Bush was President for two years and the Republicans controlled the House for one year. Thus, while Bush may be responsible for a lot of the economic problems we face today, the Democrats have at least as much culpability and possibly quite more, given their 80% control of government from 2007 to 2011. Second, if you look at official Federal government data, Bush budget deficits are not to blame for our current economic malaise. The deficit picture was actually improving under Bush, up until the November 2006 midterm elections. It is only when the Democrats take over Congress in 2007 does the deficit problem deteriorate significantly. No matter what government data you examine or graph, e.g. unemployment rate, deficits as a percentage of GDP, deficits as a percentage of budget, total annual deficits, etc., the U.S. economy was in pretty good shape until the Democrats took over Congress in 2007. In many cases, the Bush deficit and unemployment data is as good or better than the various deficit measures during the Clinton administration. Thus, blaming Bush does nothing to let the Obama administration off the hook for the following economic disasters: 20) Cash For Clunkers - Failure 21) Cash For Caulkers - Failure 22) Cash For Appliances - Failure 23) Small Business Tax Incentives - Failure 24) HAMP Mortgage Relief Program - Failure 25) $800 Billion Economic Stimulus Program - Failure 26) Unnecessary Auto Company Bailouts Costing the Taxpayers Billions Of Dollars - Failure 27) Unnecessary Bank and Financial Institution Bailouts 28) Persistently high unemployment three years after Bush left office and three years into the Obama administration. 29) Gas prices that have consistently been about double what they were since the Obama administration began. 30) Average household income levels have fallen in the three years after Bush left office and all three years into the Obama administration. 31) Several years ago, Senator Obama decried the Bush administration when it requested a debt ceiling raising from Congress, correctly categorizing it a "failure in leadership." As President, the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress have added almost as much to our national debt than all Presidential administrations prior to the Obama administration COMBINED. The "Foreign Affairs Are Foreign To Me" Syndrome Many of the foreign affairs issues we face as a nation are difficult and challenging. I am not sure that President John McCain could have done a better job than Obama. However, as the old sports saying goes, "you are only as good as your record," and this administration's foreign affairs record is not good and given its track record to date, is not likely to improve in the next four years: 32) Iran is three years closer to having nuclear weapons capability. 33 )North Korea is three years closer to having nuclear weapons capability.34) The Israelis and Palestinians are no closer to peaceful coexistence than they were three years ago. 35) Our Afghanistan situation is just as hopeless and lost as it was three years ago. 36) The latest public opinion polls of Arab citizens indicate our standing with the "Arab Street" is as low as it has ever been, ranking behind Iran and its tyrannical leaders on many dimensions. 37) The Obama administration was caught totally unaware and unprepared when one of the biggest freedom movements of all time came to be, the Arab Spring, indicating a massive contingency planning failure of State Department. 38) Although the Obama administration has theoretically gotten us militarily out of Iraq, it was done much later than we were led to believe would happen during the 2008 Presidential campaign. In fact, Obama withdrew our troops from Iraq on the original George W. Bush withdrawal schedule, a fact that was not mentioned during Obama's campaigning. 39) All of which is a moot point since rather than stationing actual U.S. military troops in the country, we will pay anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 mercenaries to do our military bidding going forward. Thus, we will still have armed forces in the country, regardless of what you call them, in direct opposition to Obama's vow to get us all the way out of Iraq. Overall, from a foreign affairs perspective, we are no better off, best case, than we were three years ago and in many cases, especially the growth in the nuclear arms club, we are likely worse off. The "How To Screw It Up For The 90% When Trying To Fix It For The 10%" Syndrome - Obama Care When the debate over health care reform started, it was viewed as a national tragedy that between 30 million Americans, or about 10% of the population, did not have health care insurance coverage. Rather than come up with a solution that addressed the needs of the 10%, the Obama administration constructed an immense, unwieldy, and doomed to failure piece of legislation that is likely to not fix the 10% problem but will cause havoc for many in the 90% of the people that already had, and were mostly happy with, their current health care insurance. At no time in our history can I remember a piece of legislation that was so poorly thought out, so poorly written, and will have such catastrophic impacts on so many Americans: 40) Tens of millions of Americans are likely to lose their health care insurance from their employers since under Obama Care it is less expensive for them to terminate their health care insurance programs and pay a fine than to continue them. 41) Obama Care will impose more than 1,950 new Federal government rules and regulations on Americans and American businesses, reducing economic growth and contributing to high unemployment for years besides severely restricting the freedom of all Americans. 42) The CLASS component of Obama Care, that program which was supposed to provide long term care and was one of the main and few reasons for the initial financial analysis of Obama Care being positive, has already been shut down because it provided fewer benefits at higher cost than existing long term care programs in the private sector. Thus, the financial viability of the entire Obama Care program is now in great doubt. 43) The head actuary for Medicare and Medicaid recently completed his own in-depth analysis of Obama Care and concluded that it will add more than $300 billion to the national debt in the first ten years vs. if Obama Care had not been passed, shattering the Obama administration's claim that Obama Care would reduce our skyrocketing national debt. 44) About 1,500 exemptions to the law's requirements have already been granted by the Obama administration, strongly indicating that if you have to make over 1,500 exemptions before the full force of the legislation is in effect, it is not going to be a good piece of legislation. 45) The law is so poorly written that it will likely influence whether Americans get married, take a promotion, or retire since there are seriously financial ramifications for all of these decisions under Obama Care. Government laws and actions should make citizens' lives easier, not seriously impact and influence the major personal decisions in their lives. 46) The legislation was passed through the barely legal but highly unethical process called reconciliation. Legislation of this magnitude and this importance needed to be passed with full disclosure and in the right, ethical way since it will impact every American. Reconciliation is the wrong way, it is the coward's way. 47) Numerous opinion polls of business owners show that the magnitude, penalties, and uncertainty of the Obama Care legislation is causing business owners to hunker down and curtail business expansion and hiring, contributing to continued high unemployment and anemic economic growth. 48) The legislation will fail miserably because of the poor problem solving skills of those who wrote it. The root causes of our skyrocketing health care costs and resultant high insurance costs are the following, mostly public health reasons: *Americans eat too much. * Americans eat too much of the wrong types of food. * Americans do not exercise enough. * Americans smoke too much. * Americans are getting older on average. Obama Care took a public health crisis and tried to solve it with massive increases in inefficient government regulations, taxation, and bureaucratic intervention into our lives. Rather than addressing and focusing these pubic health issues (along with medical industry tort reform and cross state line insurance competition), Obama Care created 1,950 rules and regulations that will do little to fix these pressing public health care issues. 49) And most importantly, Obama either lied or was totally oblivious to what Obama Care would do to most Americans. The President said we could all keep our current health care plans but that will not happen since many companies will opt to pay Obama Care's small fines than continue to carry health insurance for their employees. The President said that Obama Care will not add to the national debt but that is no where close to being a true statement according to many nonpartisan experts. The "I Hope The Big Issues of Our Time Get Resolved Since I Have Other Things To Do" Syndrome For decades, no one in the White House or in Congress has come up with effective, compassionate, and efficient solutions to the major issues of our times. These include Republicans and Democrats, today and forty years ago. Thus, although candidate Obama campaigned on the promise of hope and change, his ability and come with actual plans to implement that hope and change has failed just as miserably as those that came before him, causing that "hope and change" theme to ring very hollow three years into his term: 50) Forty years or so after Nixon declared "war on drugs," we are no closer as a nation form having a sane and effective illicit drug program. In fact, if anything, the growth of the violent drug cartels that threaten the sovereignty of Mexico and other Central and South American countries has grown exponentially during Obama's first three years as resolution of our war on drugs is nowhere in sight. Read more: http://digitaljournal.com...

negative: Today's Social Security was a terrible idea My apologies. I am currently in the process of moving into my college dorm and time got away from me. Could we possibly start arguments on round 3? 4 argument rounds could turn into a very repetitive event anyways.

negative: Obama Care is a disaster “Unemployment insurance or subsidized coverage run by the government is destined to fail. It encourages laziness, has no accountability, and wins the voters' vote who is receiving it. […] If you don't work and don't plan on working, you shouldn't be allowed to have it.” Keep in mind unemployment insurance only goes to folks who are actively looking for work, a mom who needs help feeding her kids when she sends out her resumes or a dad who needs help paying the rent while working part-time and still earning the skills he needs for that new job. “Subsidies cause an extra burden on those who have earned their health care. A lot of young and healthy people were counted on it enter the exchanges, but they can't afford it. This causes the system to collapse, because those who are paying for it don't want to get it anymore.” First, there is the myth that this is a problem restricted to a small share of predominantly minority poor. This isn’t a broad-based problem; this is a black problem or Hispanic problem or a Native American problem. Now, it’s true that the painful legacy of discrimination means that African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans are far more likely to suffer from a lack of opportunity -- higher unemployment, higher poverty rates. It’s also true that women still make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. So we’re going to need strong application of anti-discrimination laws. We’re going to need immigration reform that grows the economy and takes people out of the shadows. We’re going to need targeted initiatives to close those gaps. “The free market isn't 100% fair, but not everyone is equal.” This trend towards growing inequality is not unique to America’s market economy; across the developed world, inequality has increased. Some of you may have seen just last week, the pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length. America is a place where, even if you’re born with nothing, with a little hard work, you can improve your own situation over time and build something better to leave your kids. “When time passes for the working poor Americans, their income increases in mobility in larger steps than the wealthier born Americans. This is in spite of the more affluent Americans growing faster than the less fortunate.” Some of the social patterns that contribute to declining mobility, that were once attributed to the urban poor -- you know, that’s a particular problem for the inner city, you know, single-parent households or drug abuse -- it turns out now we’re seeing that pop up everywhere. A new study shows that disparities in education, mental health, obesity, absent fathers, isolation from church, isolation from community groups -- these gaps are now as much about growing up rich or poor as they are about anything else. The gap in test scores between poor kids and wealthy kids is now nearly twice what it is between white kids and black kids. Kids with working-class parents are 10 times likelier than kids with middle- or upper-class parents to go through a time when their parents have no income. So the fact is this: The opportunity gap in America is now as much about class as it is about race. And that gap is growing. So if we’re going to take on growing inequality and try to improve upward mobility for all people, we’ve got to move beyond the false notion that this is an issue exclusively of minority concern. And we have to reject a politics that suggests any effort to address it in a meaningful way somehow pits the interests of a deserving middle class against those of an undeserving poor in search of handouts. “People give more when they are not taxed. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis proved this.” Our tax code is fairer and our fiscal situation is firmer, with deficits that are now less than half of what they were. “The 1.1 Million people that have health care coverage according to the White House recently.This is lower than the 3.3 Million that Obama Administration projected.” The basic structure of that law is working, despite all the problems. Despite the website problems, despite the messaging problems, despite all that, it's working. And again, you don't have to take my word for it. We've got a couple million people who are going to have health insurance just in the first three months, despite the fact that probably the first month and a half was lost because of problems with the website and about as bad a bunch of publicity as you could imagine. And yet, you've still got 2 million people who signed up -- or more. And so, what that means, then, is that the demand is there, and as I said before, the product is good. Now, in putting something like this together, there are going to be all kinds of problems that crop up, some of which may have been unanticipated. And what we've been trying to do is just respond to them in a common-sense way, and we're going to continue to try to do that. But that doesn't negate the fact that, you know, a year from now or two years from now, when we look back, we're going to be able to say that even more people have health insurance who didn't have it before. And that's not a bad thing; that's a good thing. That is part of the reason why I pushed so hard to get this law done in the first place. And -- you know, I've said before that this is a messy process. And I think, sometimes, when I say that, people say, well, A, yeah, it's real messy, and B, you know, isn't -- isn't the fact that it's been so messy some indication that there are more fundamental problems with the law? And I guess what I'd say to that, Chuck, is, when you try to do something this big affecting this many people, it's going to be hard. And every instance -- whether it's Social Security, Medicare, the prescription drug plan under President Bush -- there hasn't been an instance where you've tried to really have an impact on the American peoples' lives and well-being, particularly in the health care arena where you don't end up having some of these challenges. The question is going to be, ultimately, do we make good decisions trying to help as many people as possible in as efficient a way as possible? And I think that's what we're doing. I don’t pretend that this plan will solve all our problems. It should not be, nor will it be, the last plan of action we propose. What’s guided us from the start of this crisis hasn’t been the search for a silver bullet. It’s been a commitment to stay at it -- to be persistent -- to keep trying every new idea that works, and listen to every good proposal, no matter which party comes up with it. Regardless of the arguments we’ve had in the past, regardless of the arguments we will have in the future, this plan is the right thing to do right now. “Health care maybe increasing at a slower rate than ever, but that's still a big price you have to pay. The creation of Medicare and Medicaid, not paying the doctor directly, longer life span, and government subsidies is the likely source of the problem.” Without Social Security nearly half of seniors would be living in poverty -- half. Today fewer than 1 in 10 do. Before Medicare, only half of all seniors had some form of health insurance. Today virtually all do. And because we’ve strengthened that safety net and expanded pro-work and pro- family tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, a recent study found that the poverty rate has fallen by 40 percent since the 1960s. What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? These endeavors didn’t just make us a better country; they reaffirmed that we are a great country. President Kennedy once said, “Our problems are man-made –- therefore they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants.” These are difficult years for our country. But we are Americans. We are tougher than the times we live in, and we are bigger than our politics have been. So let’s meet the moment. Let’s get to work, and let’s show the world once again why the United States of America remains the greatest nation on Earth.

negative: Privatizing social security Support for privatization is driven by misinformation.

negative: Health care is a right and thus a service that should be provided by a government Barack Obama, JD, US President, US Senator (D-IL) and presidential candidate at the time of the quotation, stated during the Oct. 7, 2008 presidential debate in Nashville, TN, moderated by Tom Brokaw of NBC News: "I think it [health care] should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that.""The hour has arrived to begin anew the Civil Rights Movement, this time for Health Care for All... The Preamble to the United States Constitution and Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution both describe an originating purpose of our United States: to promote the general welfare. Health care is a legitimate function of our government. Health care is a basic right in a Democratic society. It is no more a privilege based on ability to pay than is the right to vote, which was once accorded only to property owners." Edward M. Kennedy, LLB, late US Senator (D-MA), stated in his July 18, 2009 article "'The Cause of My Life'" published in Newsweek magazine: "[Q]uality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face... This is the cause of my life. It is a key reason that I defied my illness last summer to speak at the Democratic convention in Denver... to make sure, as I said, 'that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American"will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege'... [I]t goes to the heart of my belief in a just society..." The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the official organization of the Catholic hierarchy in the United States, wrote in its June 18, 1993 resolution titled "A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform": "Our approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle: 'Every person has a right to adequate health care. This right flows from the sanctity of human life and the dignity that belongs to all human persons, who are made in the image of God.' Health care is more than a commodity; it is a basic human right, an essential safeguard of human life and dignity. We believe our people's health care should not depend on where they work, how much their parents earn, or where they live. Our constant teaching that each human life must be protected and human dignity promoted leads us to insist that all people have a right to health care." Let me start by telling the story of Deamonte Driver. Deamonte lived on the wrong side of the tracks, in Prince George"s County, Maryland, outside of Washington, D.C. He was raised by a single mother. He spent his childhood in and out of homeless shelters. He was a black kid on welfare. The Apothecary Insights into health care and entitlement reform. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. Avik RoyAvik Roy, Forbes Staff Yale University - Davenport College Facade - N... Facade of Davenport College, Yale University. (Photo credit: Adam Jones, Ph.D. - Global Photo Archive) Many moons ago, I served a term as chairman of the Conservative Party of the Yale Political Union, a parliamentary debating society The reason I"m here is to explain to the members of this website why health care is, indeed, a right. Let me start by telling the story of Deamonte Driver. Deamonte lived on the wrong side of the tracks, in Prince George"s County, Maryland, outside of Washington, D.C. He was raised by a single mother. He spent his childhood in and out of homeless shelters. He was a black kid on welfare. Deamonte died at age twelve. But Deamonte died, not in a drive-by shooting, or in a drug deal gone bad. Deamonte died of a toothache. In January 2007, Deamonte told his mother, Alyce, that he had a headache. She took him to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a severe dental abscess and given some medication. But the next day, his condition worsened. It turned out that the infection from his tooth had spread to his brain. He was taken to the hospital again and underwent emergency surgery. After a second surgery, he got better for a while, but then began to have seizures. Several weeks later, Deamonte was dead. Of course, that was in the old, barbaric America, the one before the enactment of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. After that law is fully implemented, nearly every American will have health insurance, and stories like Deamonte"s will be a thing of the past. Except that Deamonte Driver died not because he was uninsured. Indeed, Deamonte Driver died because he was insured"by the government. Deamonte, it turns out, was on Medicaid, America"s government-run health care program for the poor. Although Deamonte was insured, he never received routine dental care. It turns out that only 16 percent of Maryland dentists accept Medicaid patients. Fewer than one-sixth of Maryland kids on Medicaid have ever had a cavity filled. Deamonte"s younger brother, DaShawn, had six rotted teeth, but it took dozens of calls before DaShawn could find one dentist who would see him. When the dentist concluded that DaShawn"s teeth were beyond repair, and required extraction, it took another several months to find an oral surgeon who would see him.The reason why so few doctors accept Medicaid insurance is that Medicaid, in many states, pays doctors far less than it costs those doctors to care for Medicaid patients. Here in Connecticut, Medicaid pays 63 cents for every dollar that a private insurer pays a doctor to treat someone. In New Jersey, Medicaid pays only 33 cents. In New York and Rhode Island, it"s 29 cents. Doctors here face the impossible choice of treating these indigent patients, and bankrupting their practices, or not treating them at all. You"d think that many mothers in Alyce"s position would find a way around this problem, that she could offer to supplement Medicaid"s penurious fees in order to gain access to a better dentist for her two sons. But that would be illegal. For those enrolled in government-run health insurance, it is illegal to try to gain better access to doctors and dentists by offering to make up the difference between what health care costs, and what the government pays. That basic right"the right of a woman and her doctor to freely exchange money for a needed medical service"is one that 90 million Americans have been denied by their government. Forcible enrollment in government health care Let me tell another story, the story of Brian Hall, of Catlett, Virginia. Brian is a 69-year-old retiree. Brian did what we"d want all retirees to do: he saved for his own health care. Brian"s office job allowed him to stay on private insurance after he retired. Brian"s health coverage included a high-deductible insurance plan that would take care of him if he got hit by a bus, or fell down the stairs, or suffered from a stroke. It also included a health savings account, to which Brian made annual deposits of about $4,000 a year. Brian collected interest on that savings account, and could use those savings to pay for routine health expenses. Unlike Deamonte Driver, Brian could use his health savings account to gain access to just about any doctor he wanted, because he was paying cash. There was only one condition: Brian could only continue to use his health savings account, and his high-deductible insurance coverage, if he did not enroll in Medicare. Brian was okay with that. He had saved enough over the course of his life that he preferred the plan he was on, rather than a Medicare program that was increasingly facing the same problems as Medicaid. But on January 3, 2009, when Brian turned 65, he received a phone call from the Social Security Administration, informing him that he had no choice but to enroll in Medicare, and that he could not withdraw from the program. If Brian insisted on withdrawing from Medicare, the agent told him, he would forfeit his right to his monthly Social Security benefit, a benefit that he had paid for with every paycheck he"d ever received. Now, think about that for a moment. Brian Hall is telling the government that he doesn"t want to take advantage of a government program. He"s saying, "take this taxpayer money and spend it on someone else. I"m happy to continue to pay into my private insurance plan and my private health savings account instead." And the government responds by telling him that he has no choice but to enroll in Medicare and shut down his health savings account. If he doesn"t do what the government has told him to do, the Social Security Administration will confiscate his pension, even though his pension has no financial connection to the Medicare program. Brian did something that Alyce Driver couldn"t afford to do. He sued. In court, Brian argued that forced participation in Medicare violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. But Hall lost the case, in district court. He appealed his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where he lost again, in a 2 to 1 decision. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. But the Supremes, in their infinite wisdom, refused to hear the case. "We understand plantiffs" frustration," wrote the majority in the Court of Appeals opinion. But "plaintiffs" position is inconsistent with the statutory text." In other words, that basic right"the right of a retiree to turn down a federal program, and pay for the health insurance plan of his choice, is one that every retired American has been denied by his government. Infringing the rights of young people It"s not just the poor and the elderly whose rights to health care have been infringed by the government. It"s also the young. The Affordable Care Act contains a provision called "community rating." It requires that insurers charge their costliest customers a maximum of three times what they charge their least-costly customers. The problem is this: the average 64-year-old consumes about six times as much health care as the average 18-year-old. So the economic consequence of community rating, in the vast majority of U.S. states, is that many young people will see their premiums rise by more than 100 percent, so that some older individuals will enjoy modest discounts of 10 percent on their premiums. This provision was added to Obamacare at the behest of the AARP, the famous seniors" lobby. Our new health law cuts Medicare by $716 billion over the next ten years, and Democrats needed AARP"s support in order to pass the bill. So they added community rating: in effect, a massive transfer of wealth from the young to the old. And here"s the kicker: thanks to Obamacare"s individual mandate, young people are no longer allowed to opt out of the system. They must pay these drastically inflated rates for health insurance, even if they never go to the doctor. The average 20-year-old consumes about $700 a year in health care, but will be forced to pay $4,000 a year, or more, for health insurance. You see, health care is a right, in the same way that liberty is a right. And that liberty"to freely seek the care we need, to pay for it in a way that is mutually convenient for us and our doctors, is one that our government is gradually taking out of our hands. Positive rights vs. negative rights Now, I"m not going to drone on tonight about Locke and Bastiat and Nozick and Rawls, but I do want to address the difference between negative rights and positive rights. I know that those on the left side of this House do not necessarily accept that there is a meaningful difference between negative and positive rights. So let"s talk about the progressive conception that we all have a positive right to health care, care largely paid for by other people. It"s a great applause line, isn"t it, to say that "health care is a universal human right." But after the applause has died down, we"re left with the question that the left rarely takes time to answer: what is health care? Let"s say there"s a new treatment for terminal prostate cancer, one that extends your life, on average, by two months. The treatment costs one million dollars per patient. Does every American have a right to that treatment? Is two months of life worth a million dollars? What if I smoke two packs a day, and I come down with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a costly chronic condition. Do I have a right to the money of other people, in order to care for a disease that I, in all likelihood, brought upon myself? A progressive might respond that we need to provide basic health care to everyone, so that no one is left dying on the street after getting hit by a bus. But we already provide "free" emergency care to every American. So what else counts as basic health care? Is Viagra health care? Is all health care a right, or just some? And who decides? These are the questions that no applause line can adequately answer. In Great Britain, the moral logic of the progressive right to health care is carried to its conclusion. In Britain, a bureaucracy called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE, has determined that a new treatment that extends life by something called a "quality-adjusted life year" is only worth paying for if it costs less than "20-30,000, or about $30-$45,000. This formula leads NICE to make, from time to time, some interesting decisions. In 2005, Genentech, the pioneering biotechnology company, announced impressive clinical trial results for a new drug called Lucentis, that treated the leading cause of blindness in the elderly, a disease called age-related macular degeneration, or AMD. Genentech sought to charge "2,000 a month for Lucentis, amounting to "28,000 for a 14-month course of treatment. NICE, however, thought this too expensive, and decided to only recommend payment for Lucentis if a patient was already blind in one eye. NICE"s logic being that a person who has two eyes, and loses one, is not that badly off; whereas a person who has one eye, and loses that one, is completely blind, and that"s no good. Literally, England has become the land of the blind, in which the one-eyed man is king. The strongest progressive argument But the progressive side has better, stronger arguments that I will make on its behalf. Let"s take the example of a young, pregnant mother, who has just learned that the baby in her womb has Down Syndrome. She is faced with the terrible choice of knowing that if she carries her pregnancy to term, it will cost her a fortune in money, time, and effort to care for her new child. She has every economic incentive to undergo an abortion, even if she doesn"t want one, even if she is pro-life. There are other children born with disease and disability, like cystic fibrosis or juvenile diabetes. Unlike our chronic smoker, who has brought about his own health problems, these children face severe disadvantages in life, through no fault of their own. These children"and the many adults who endure similar misfortune"are worthy of our attention, and our charity. By the classical liberal understanding of negative rights, that mother who bears a child with Down Syndrome has no right to my financial support. But surely, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we can afford to pool our resources to care for those who truly need our help. I, for one, would be glad to pay a portion of my earnings to fund high-quality health care for the truly needy. But that is not what we do in America. We massively subsidize health care for wealthy seniors, through Medicare, and for wealthy workers, through a provision of the tax code called the employer tax exclusion. Those two programs alone cost us over $1 trillion a year, and do much to make American health care absurdly expensive. They also make it much harder to fund health care for the poor and the uninsured, by starving the government of resources it could direct to that purpose. Did you know that in America"this alleged bastion of the free-market"the government spends more per capita on health care than all but three countries in the world? In 2010, U.S. public entities spent $3,967 per person on health care. That"s far more than Germany, Canada, France, Britain, and all of the other countries we conservatives normally think of as socialist dystopias. This point is so compelling that it has become a standard talking point on the left. "Not only would a single-payer system provide health care to everyone," they say, "but it would also reduce the deficit." And they"re right. But what progressives neglect to point out is that, while every developed country in the world other than ours has universal health care, some of those countries achieve universal coverage using market-oriented methods that emphasize personal choice and responsibility. Singapore spends one-seventh of what we spend on health care, and one-quarter of what Europeans do. And yet Singapore has managed to cover everyone, with health outcomes that are as good or better than the rest of the world. They"ve done it through a system of universal health savings accounts, in which every Singaporean saves for his own routine health expenses, while gaining insurance coverage for catastrophic events. Now, Singapore"s political system is hardly the model of freedom. But its health care system teaches us much about how affordable it can be to provide health care to everyone, if we do it the right way. We would be running massive surpluses, instead of deficits, if we had a health-care system like Singapore"s. So, let me leave the House with this thought. Some of us believe that health care is a negative right: that it"s the government"s obligation to maximize the degree to which we have freedom to seek the health care of our choosing. On the other hand, some of us believe that health care is a positive right: that the government has every prerogative to appropriate our income, for the purpose of providing some sort of health care to everyone. The progressive conception of health care as a positive right misses something important: that we could provide better, and more affordable, coverage for everyone if we understood the degree to which classical liberal principles, like choice and competition and voluntarism, can achieve a superior form of universal health care. The libertarian conception of health care as a negative right, however, also misses something important: the degree to which it is a worthy thing for us to pool our resources in order to support those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves with disability or disease. As two commentators recently put it, "equality of opportunity is not a natural state; it is a social achievement, for which government shares some responsibility. The proper reaction to egalitarianism is not indifference. It is the promotion of a fluid society in which aspiration is honored and rewarded." A child with Down Syndrome may not have the right to my money. But we are a better community, and a better country, if we give it to him anyway.

negative: death penalty we should get rid of the death penalty for sure

negative: Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act This round is primarily arguments, so I shall lay mine out. I shall use the words CHCSA and legislative reforms interchangeably. C1. Improved Economic Efficiency Because the legislative package would grant seniors the freedom to choose their health insurance, we would see greater efficiency through the competitive marketplace. The legislation would devolve choice to the individual, and this component of individual choice is in addition to cost-sharing. These two components of individual choice and cost-sharing will produce lower health-care costs because – to quote Milton Friedman, “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as wisely as he spends his own”. The CHCSA’s market reforms would reduce the federal expenditures by $30.589 billion in 2015, which accumulates to over $1 trillion in savings over the following decade, and cuts Medicare’s unfunded liabilities in half [1] [2] [3]. These calculations were generated from the Senate Budget Committee. Also, the convoluted web of red tape which governs Medicare – a composure of thousands of pages of statutory and regulatory requirements – costs the American economy $150 billion through redundant paperwork [1]. Furthermore, the rate of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare program is plentiful. Indeed, Medicare’s fraudulent payment rate is 10 times the rate of private insurance plans. Devolving Medicare to the individual would lead to a drastic reduction in this type of wasteful, erroneous spending [8]. CII. Improved Health Care The CHCSA allows seniors to choose a health insurance plan from the FEHBP (a federal marketplace of insurance plans, essentially). The FEHBP is basically universally accepted by health care providers – a whopping 99% of physicians accept an FEHBP plan [4]. In contrast, the American Medical Association has reported that nearly one-third (31%) of physicians refuse to see Medicare patients (because of reduced copays) [5]. Medicare Advantage (supplemental private plans to Medicare) can convey how effective private plans are in contrast to Medicare. Empirical data from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) report that Medicare Advantage plans outperform traditional Medicare in “numerous quality measures” [6]. Also, consumer satisfaction is higher among those with an FEHBP plan, in contrast to traditional Medicare [7]. To summarize, the CHCSA would: - Enhance Health Care Access - Improve Health Care QualityAlso, any arguments that "seniors would be excluded" because of pre-existing conditions is moot, because the FEHBP has guaranteed issue (everybody is guaranteed acceptance to an insurance plan) [2]. CIII. Improves Retirement Security The senior’s average premiums today is approximately $3,500 annually (adding both Part B premiums and the average supplemental insurance plans) [10]. The average premium for seniors under this Medicare reform is estimated to be $1,900 annually [10] [1]. How is this possible? Through competition, raising the retirement age, scrapping the Medicare’s outdated red tape apparatus, and other reforms, we improve Medicare’s efficiency (through the CHCSA legislation). CIV. Expanded Personal Choice FEHBP enrollees typically have a choice between 12 and 20 insurance plans [9]. Therefore, seniors will have expanded personal choice. Subsequently, seniors will choose insurance plans that are crafted towards what their unique situation requires. For instance, a man with hypertension and high cholesterol may opt for a coverage plan that is focused on providing excellent cardiovascular health care. Seniors will have the freedom to choose their health insurance plan, which will lead to a specialization of the health insurance market, based upon the demands of tens of millions of seniors. Conclusions The CHCSA would go far lengths in improving health care for seniors. These are the primary benefits offered through this legislation: - Greater Access to Health Care - Improved Health Care - Improved Administrative Efficiency - Medicare Solvency - Reduced Federal Expenditures - Improved Retirement Security Those in favor of the current Medicare system are in favor of Medicare’s bankruptcy and demise. I for one believe that we should protect and strengthen Medicare for today and for future generations. The CHCSA is a package of true reforms that will not only save Medicare, but will improve the lives of millions of Americans around this nation. Sources [1] (. http://tinyurl.com...) [2] (. http://tinyurl.com...) [3] (. http://www.whitehouse.gov...) See Table 8.5, Medicare 2015 expenditures, subtract this figure from the CHCSA on page 95 of citation [2]. [4] (. http://tinyurl.com...) [5] (. http://tinyurl.com...) [6] (. http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com...) [7] (. http://tinyurl.com...) [8] (. http://tinyurl.com...) [9] (. http://tinyurl.com...)

negative: The means testing of social security benefits. Since my opponent is not really participating in this debate, I'm just going to state two simple argument points:1. Not granting social security benefits to all can decrease popular support for the program: If not everyone are receiving the benefits, it is much likely for voters to turn against the program as it is part of human nature; no one should get it for as long as I am not receiving it. In order to keep the program funded, every working Americans need to pay for it.2. Difficulty in assessing who "need" the benefits:With a pension of $25,000 a year, you may just be fine living in one of the Southern states; but it is near impossible to live in L.A. or NYC. Social security benefits will not allow you to live grant, but it would at least supplement your income as to close down the gap a little bit. In either case the individual will be above poverty line, meaning he/she will not receive any social security benefit as what PRO argues for.

negative: Welfare Should Be Abolished. Resolved: Welfare Should Be Abolished. Definitions: Abolished: "formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution)." Welfare: "A government program which provides financial aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves." R1. Acceptance R2. Argument's/ Rebuttals from Con R3. Argument/Rebuttal's R4. Conclusion Sources; Abolish (https://www.google.com...) Welfare ( https://www.google.com...)

negative: We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class I'm looking to have a short but concise debate. The full topic is "We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class in the USA through additional taxation. " Wealth redistribution will incur an extra 10% tax per dollar earned over the existing income tax rate to the wealthiest 1% to be redistributed to the lower-middle class.

negative: Be it resolved that gay marriage be legalized in the United States "First, I would like to address the violence aspect. It is proven that domestic abuse and violence are more prevalent in oppressed communities, who are not given equal social and societal privileges and recognition. " "According to. .. .? My opponent brings up the fact that gays are prone to violence because they are oppressed, bringing in an example of black people. First of all, gays have the exact same rights as everybody else. Marriage is not a federal or state right, instead it is a priviedge. To argue that black people have less rights is absurd. They have exactly the same rights as everybody. By bringing the black case into the argument, you have contradicted yourself. If giving the same rights to black people as everybody else doesn't work (causes violence etc. . ), then what is to say that it will help gays (even though they have the same rights). My opponent keeps going on how minorities are more likely to commit worse crimes. This is false as he gave no evidence of it. "Marriage isn't a right" The principle and privilege of marriage falls upon the ability to fecundate within the marriage. There is absolutely to societal purpose for gays to marry. My opponent said, "Why not dissolve all heterosexual marriages". The reason for this is because they serve a common purpose, procreation. Procreation is highly beneficial to society. Gays cannot provide this service. The prevalent case with the pro-gay marriage community is that they believe that everybody who is in love, should marry. This falls false on a few account. If everybody who loved was given the privilege of marrying, then we should let brothers and sisters marry. After all, sometimes they love eachother. We should also legalize polygamy because the people love each other. If the state must recognize marital privileges solely based on the purpose of love, then what right does it have to deny it to the above mentioned criteria? "Children need both a mother and a father to function correctly. This simply isn't the case. Most major studies have prove that the only thing a child needs to have a stable, nuclear (two parental figures) family environment to function. " My opponent has claimed a position, with no sources to back it up. I have my position backed up with numerous sources and facts. David Popenoe's new books "Life Without Father", clearly shows the detrimental and harmful effects that SSM marriages have on children. "It helps economically: Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the City's economy and $184 million to the State's economy. "My opponent is nitpicking facts and ignoring the big picture. There are about 9 million gays in the US (3%). Lets assume that 66% of them will marry. That leaves us with about 6 million gays.6 million/2= 3 millionThat is about 3 million couples. These are the rights and benefits of heterosexual couples. Right to benefits while married: employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances) sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits Larger benefits under some programs if married, including: veteran's disability Supplemental Security Income disability payments for federal employees Medicaid property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3] Joint and family-related rights: joint filing of bankruptcy permitted joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce domestic violence intervention access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses. Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse Court notice of probate proceedings Domestic violence protection orders Existing homestead lease continuation of rights Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption Funeral and bereavement leave Joint adoption and foster care Joint tax filing Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society Legal status with stepchildren Making spousal medical decisions Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation Right of survivorship of custodial trust Right to change surname upon marriage Right to enter into prenuptial agreement Right to inheritance of property Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege) For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including: Social Security pension veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing survivor benefits for federal employees survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts Just by looking at the list, we can see the economic detriment that gay marriage would have on the economy. I will not go into statistics as there is no concrete amount. It is obvious that these benefits financially outweigh the benefits that my opponent has brought up. Conclusion Marriage is a privilege, not a right. My opponent has tried to show how gay marriage couples are violent because of other reasons. This is false. Heterosexual couples benefit to society, while gays don't. Homosexual couples will be an economic detriment. Thank you.

negative: privatize the USA's social security schemes The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent

negative: Social Security ok my point to why I think it is wrong is in my first paragraph. I have little to say but i don't think I need to say anymore.

negative: Social Security I refuted your first argument. Fon't drop your contentions. I believe I have won, in light of my opponent's lack of defense. Vote Pro. Thanks, -EG

negative: social security should b means tested against the rich social security should be means tested against the rich a person making a hundred and fifty thousand dollars is in the ninety percentile of income. if we cut out benefits for the top ten percent, then, we'd be reducing the cost of social security by more than ten percent given theyd otherwise be getting much bigger than average payouts. cutting social security by ten fifteen or twenty percent would go a long way to balancing the budget. that is, if we cut the whole budget by thirteen percent, we'd balance the budget. i'm just arguing that social security shouldn't be exempt. balancing the budget is a national security issue, a major problem that needs fixed.

negative: Improved Medicare for All (USA) -----Rebuttals----- Superior Insurance R1: Better Health Care Quality Neither the American College of Physicians or the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommend mammograms for all women 40-50 (as your source implies). They have not been empirically shown to cut overall mortality rates. Colon cancer screenings and PSA testing are not generally recommended in Canada, based on questionable benefits. We don't know if these may save lives, — or cause more harm than good. We don't really know if the lower use is good or bad. [2] Health care quality is better with Medicare for All — because medical professionals work their best for your health, and are not regulated by private insurance bureaucrats. R2: Rationing All health care systems ration, a fact. [3] Canada doesn't take money into the equation. There are a few waiting lists for elective care, but emergency cases receive immediate attention. Also, if Canadians spent more money on health care as we do, virtually all waiting lists would likely disappear. [4] Also, the time to wait is very close to wait specialists call reasonable in Canada. [5] The USA rations a different way. If you can't afford care, you are denied it. Thus, the tens of millions of uninsured Americans, and the 45,000 deaths annually are both the results of rationing in America. We can end all of this death, and reduce the amount of deaths from 45,000 annually to 0. Health care is a moral issue. And we should make it more equitable, which SP does. American Rationing (current system): *The United Kingdom has Socialized Medicine, not Single payer healthcare. The former has gov't financing and medical delivery. Single Payer only has public financing. Thus, the U.K. is irrelevant to our debate. A Health Affairs survey reports that 27% of Canadians and 5% of Americans waited 4 months or more for elective surgery. However, the same study shows that 25%+ Americans didn't get medical care according to cost. That's 29%+. This is non-emergency treatment. So, American rationing is more severe as we can see. [6] Con has stated that Americans have better access to hip replacement. Ironically, nearly all hip replacement surgeries are provided by Medicare. So, Con has stated that Medicare provides good care. R3: Higher Satisfaction with Medicare Medicare recepients were more happy with Medicare vs those with employer sponsored coverage by 11 points. Medicare recepients also had higher quality care, better access to care, and an easier financial time with Medicare. All these points prove that Medicare has improved quality, improved affordability, and improved access. Thus we can derive that Medicare for All expands our freedom, is fair, improves our liberty, and is essential for our lives. Saves Money R1: Cut Health Inflation The G.A.U. shows that when Canada implemented its Single Payer system, health costs were about 8.9% in Canada, and in the USA 11.5% of GDP. [1] Today, Canada spends on its health costs about 10% of GDP, compared to the USA rate of 17%. Administration costs are lower, because we have not invested in ICT (electronic sharing) information system(s). From this we can deduct that Single Payer systems have reduced health care inflation, and thus lower costs over time. This correlates with my argument last round that Medicare has lower health care inflation. Canada has temporarily higher health care inflation because they are investing in ICT technology for future savings. [8] Taiwan with SP reduced their health care inflation to 2%. [9] R2: True Savings Con's sources basically say that because Medicare has no taxes, they have lower costs. It does not address the fundamental point though. --We have a massive plethora of thousands of health insurance companies. Each one has different rules, regulations, billing procedures, the costs of marketing, advertising, CEO profits, general profits, and huge bureaucracies to deny people care (rationing). This is massively inefficient. We have administrative costs of 7% because of this. --Other nations like Taiwan have a system in which one entity finances care. Simple billing procedures, simplified, and efficient. Administrative costs cut to 2%. Also, an apples-to-apples approach with Medicare and Medicare Advantage shows that Medicare has rates of administration of 2%. M. Adantage is 11%. [10] This proves my point, that private entities are less efficient in health insurance. Consensus: SP would cut many costs. From administrative costs and massive simplifying of financing health care, improving ICT technology, ranking procedures by efficacy, and removing insurance profits from the equation you save about $300 billion or more. And by a large insurance pool, risk is lowered and thus costs are lowered. This is the most important point in the savings provided by Medicare for All. It has been left unrefuted fully. Restores American Competitiveness Con fails to refute any of this argument. The cut in workers comp. by 50%, reducing labor costs by 10-12%, and cutting excess health bureaucracy. Taxes replace the prior premiums. All the savings I just mentioned are after taxes are included. Utlimately, SP would go far strides in making America's businesses competitive again in the global market, worker's wages would increase more with productivity, and the savings would be used for economic growth. All of these points have stood. Efficient Government Con refers us to Socialized Medicine, yet again. Single Payer would finance care based on the actual costs, plus a marginal profit. All of this would be provided a global budget. Global budgets would finance the costs of health care on a patient basis, and a guaranteed profit with it. This would encourage efficiency to increase profits and attract new patients. Look at Medicare now. It doesn't force providers to "extremely low levels" of costs. It just finances care. Conclusion Medicare for All would have huge benefits for America. - Equal Access to Care - Rationing Cut, ethical care restored - Universal comprehensive coverage - Free Choice of Provider - Global Budgets - Pro-business legislation: In addition to cuts in workers comp. by 50%, a 10-12% cut in labor costs, and other cutting other bureaucracy. - Pro-Labor Wages would correlate once again with productivity - more economic growth. - Simple rules - Doctor-Patient Relationship restored - $300 billion in savings, over $1,000 a person after taxes We care about people. This is the core of our Democracy. We should extend this empathy to protect and empower others, and expand their liberty, expand their life, and expand their freedom. We would save over 45,000 lives and end the death panels in the insurance companies that deny us care through rationing that kills . My opponent has also dropped the moral argument. Health is a life and death issue. Everyone's life is expanded with Medicare for All. Freedom is enhanced by Medicare for All. You are not free if you must sell your house or go bankrupt to survive an illness. If an insurance company denies you care, they deny you liberty. Fairness is restored by Medicare for All. Doctor-Patient care is restored, so you two do what is best for your health. ---Medicare for All protects and empowers freedom, liberty, life, and opportunity for all Americans. And be being very simple and economically efficient, and being morally central to America's value of empathy, it is an imperative that we must achieve. *CON will not rebut R4 here. He will use 7500 characters. No contender advantage. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://www.heritage.org... Vote Pro for affordable, secure, high quality health care.

negative: Private accounts prevent politicians taking from social security. Andrew Roth. "Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: "Fiscal conservative candidates should embrace it. While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would stay in the current system, younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate "lock box" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bailout politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts."