The Instigator
CHS
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
kenito001
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

April Public Forum Practice.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,195 times Debate No: 3505
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

CHS

Con

Resolved: That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year.

Observation 1: The resolution is that the economic stimulus act will successfully mitigate the economic down turn in the next year. You can not win just by showing that there was some mitigation. It has to be successful mitigation. That means that the stimulus act has to meet the expectations of those that advocated and passed it. And it has to do that in the next year 2009.

Def: Mitigate- to lessen in severity or force

Rercession- A period of an economic contraction sometime limited in scope or duration.

Successfully- Having a favorable outcome

Inflation: a continuing rise in the general price level usually attributed to an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services

Contention 1: Aff will not attack core of economic slowdown.
The reason for economic slowdown is due to unemployment. The 2008 Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 does not propose any benefits for the umemployed in America. So it is insufficiently mitigateing the economic slowdowns- which is the point of the the resolution.

Contention 2: Spending will not increase
The Aff believes that the American economy will be restored will increase in consumer spending. However, realistically, 40% of the claims will actually directly spend their rebates according to the drudgereport.com. Other Americans may choose to do something else with their incentive. Also the $200-$600 rebate given to select Americans will not boost the economy. With only 40% of Americans spending the money, there is not chance that the economy will stimulate. Thus, when this theory is applied, it gives little or no benefit to the resolution's quest for restoring economic balance.

Contention 3: Rebates will cause inflation
The deficit spending will not be solved by giving money to Americans. It will result in the American dollar value becoming unstable. This will only increase the prices for gas and agricultural products. Thus, the rebates will never solve for recession. "Consumer Confidence Boost" is empirically false.
Although the idea behind the simulus package is mainly to increase consumer spending, the truth is: The tax incentives do not work.
1)It targets the wrong people. It gives people with less money more money when in all reality who is more likely to spend the money. A rich person who goes shopping every day and spend hundreds of dollars. Or the poor person who's in debt and can't afford to spend any of his money.
2)People will not spend this money. Many people are in debt at the moment. The act will only work if a substantial amount of money is spent. But 60% of people are either, saving the money or paying off taxes. With over half the nation not actually spending this money the stimulus act does not uphold the idea of "consumer confidence". Because the stimulus package does not boost consumer confidence like it promises, the economy will continue into downfall.
kenito001

Pro

I stand affirmative on Resolved: That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year.

Your observation is incorrect. In order to mitigate economic slowdowns, an economic model is merely required, within the next year, to show a positive outlook that is promising enough to reverse the economic losses since mid-2007.
Additionally, in principle, there is no method to differentiate between economic progress caused by the Stimulus package and progress with natural
economic mechanisms. So long as no other government measures are necessary to accomplish the aforementioned task, the affirmation wins.

I accept all of your definitions except for inflation. Inflation shall be defined as a resulting judgment from an analytical analysis of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) indicating that the United States economy is overspending and prices are rising.

Opponent 1:

"The reason for economic slowdown is due to unemployment."
Incorrect. Unemployment is normal right now and has decreased each of the last two months (Department of Labor Statistics). The economy has gained 536,000 jobs over the last fiscal year. Starting this March, however, the economy lost 80,000 jobs. This is rising unemployment. But unemployment is never the cause of economic loss, but an obvious sign that economic loss may be occurring. Unemployment is a consequence of economic change.

"The 2008 Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 does not propose any benefits for the umemployed in America."
The E.S.A. directly hands out tax rebates and business tax incentives, so you are correct. However, this argument is frivolous because unemployment is not the concern.

The E.S.A. DOES successfully mitigate in such a necessary manner because the actual causes of the economic turndown are:
1) Housing bubble popped, leading to dropping house values, foreclosures, and extended damage to the banking industry
2) A very weak dollar (NOTE: The weak dollar makes the economy worse, but the economy can be restored without appreciating the dollar.)
3) Rising gas prices that drive up all other consumer goods by increasing the factors of production for the companies responsible for the transportation and production of consumer goods.

Opponent 2: Spending will not increase
"The Aff believes that the American economy will be restored will increase in consumer spending."
The purpose isn't to just stimulate consumer spending, but to also reduce consumer debt. Tax rebates and business incentives together give each citizen an opportunity to see relief; whether that specific individual is needing of debt relief or additional assets to increase their spending. These two together will help resolve the economic crisis.

"However, realistically, 40% of the claims will actually directly spend their rebates according to the drudgereport.com."
60/40 is a fantastic ratio. The other 60% will certainly use those assets to alleviate debt or increase investment spending. Your case is inherently flawed because you criticize the affirmative for causing inflation and failing to increase spending. Inflation is the result of escalating consumer spending. Your arguments contradict.

Regardless, 40% is ideal because it is an increase in spending that is not exorbitant. The Bush Tax Cuts led to such great inflation because almost all recipients spent their rebates.

Opponent 3: Rebates will cause inflation
"The deficit spending will not be solved by giving money to Americans. It will result in the American dollar value becoming unstable. This will only increase the prices for gas and agricultural products. Thus, the rebates will never solve for recession. "Consumer Confidence Boost" is empirically false."
The American dollar is already so unstable that the E.S.A. will not make any difference. The value of the dollar is assessed more in the long-term than the short-term. Increasing the value of the dollar would certainly help the economy but it is not a necessity to fix it. Drastically reducing government spending and decreasing exportation will resolve for the dollar depreciation.

"1) It targets the wrong people. It gives people with less money more money when in all reality who is more likely to spend the money. A rich person who goes shopping every day and spend hundreds of dollars. Or the poor person who's in debt and can't afford to spend any of his money."
It targets everyone. Everyone is the right people.
This point is refuted by a previous argument (The purpose isn't to just stimulate consumer spending, but to also reduce consumer debt. Tax rebates and business incentives together give each citizen an opportunity to see relief; whether that specific individual is needing of debt relief or additional assets to increase their spending. These two together will help resolve the economic crisis).

"2) People will not spend this money. Many people are in debt at the moment. The act will only work if a substantial amount of money is spent. But 60% of people are either, saving the money or paying off taxes. With over half the nation not actually spending this money the stimulus act does not uphold the idea of "consumer confidence". Because the stimulus package does not boost consumer confidence like it promises, the economy will continue into downfall."
This is the same as your 3,1) point and your second contention. See previous arguments.

Your economic analysis is very inaccurate. My previous arguments revised the definition of inflation, observation 1, refuted all contentions, and presented the causes of the economic crisis.

Thanks,

The Colonel
Debate Round No. 1
CHS

Con

Extending Contention 1: Unempoyment is a main problem leading to this reccesion because if people are unemployed they don't have money to spend which would stimulate the economy. As of yesterday morning a yahoo article reads that 80,000 jobs were cut and unemployment went up 5.1% If 80,000 people dont have money there is no way the economy will stimulate. Also the buisness insentives will be used for new machinery which will only cut jobs leaving more people without money

I will drop my contention 2 because I do agree that it is contradictary and I would like to congradulate my oppenent on realizing that

Extending 3: Inflation will occur because if 178 billion dollars goes into the economy at once that is to much money and that will cause inflation. Too much money into the economy at once causes inflation.

Also the economic stimulus act of 2008 does nothing about the horrible gas prices right now. For example a bottle of coke used to cost 1$ but now that the oil prices are so high it cost more for the trucks to transport cokes so the price goes up $.30 that may not sound like alot but now less people buy coke and it does not help the economy when not as much money is going in.

Thanks.
kenito001

Pro

"Extending Contention 1: Unempoyment is a main problem leading to this reccesion because if people are unemployed they don't have money to spend which would stimulate the economy. As of yesterday morning a yahoo article reads that 80,000 jobs were cut and unemployment went up 5.1% If 80,000 people dont have money there is no way the economy will stimulate. Also the buisness insentives will be used for new machinery which will only cut jobs leaving more people without money"

Job cuts have increased across the nation but the unemployment rate has remained relatively stable around 5%, or the natural rate of unemployment. For there to be concern on the macroeconomic scale as you contend, there must be relatively high unemployment. Seeing as how the recession has already started and unemployment is NOT relatively high, then unemployment must be a consequence, not a cause. Unemployment did not go down 5.1% (that would equate to about 9 million jobs lost in one month). The unemployment rate rose to 5.1%, and is incomparable to the high unemployment in the economic recession of the 1980s. While 80,000 people no longer have a source of income, they do not all definitively rely upon one source of income or have no liquid assets. The tax incentives given through the stimulus package to the population will readily counterbalance the job loss.

"Extending 3: Inflation will occur because if 178 billion dollars goes into the economy at once that is to much money and that will cause inflation. Too much money into the economy at once causes inflation."
You dropped my point about how the rebates will function. See my arguments from the first round analyzing how the money will enter the market and not cause significant inflation because of the high saving to spending ratio. I say "significant inflation" because small amount of inflation are harmless and natural in a free market capitalist economy.

"Also the economic stimulus act of 2008 does nothing about the horrible gas prices right now. For example a bottle of coke used to cost 1$ but now that the oil prices are so high it cost more for the trucks to transport cokes so the price goes up $.30 that may not sound like alot but now less people buy coke and it does not help the economy when not as much money is going in."
Gas prices are the painful result of a monopolistic free market used to set oil barrel prices. The economy will not be dreadfully harmed by the gasoline prices, however the high prices will restrict the economy.

My arguments from the first round extend into this round.
Debate Round No. 2
CHS

Con

CHS forfeited this round.
kenito001

Pro

kenito001 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by CHS 9 years ago
CHS
sorry I missed my turn My computer was down
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by CHS 6 years ago
CHS
CHSkenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by kenito001 7 years ago
kenito001
CHSkenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JonathanSpence 9 years ago
JonathanSpence
CHSkenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by nightshift 9 years ago
nightshift
CHSkenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by yankeefan1294 9 years ago
yankeefan1294
CHSkenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30