The Instigator
bigbass3000
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
A-ThiestSocialist
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

April topic for POFOers only take if you are in POFO.

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: 3/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 3376
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

bigbass3000

Con

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

Observation 1-The affirmative must prove that the economic stimulus act by itself will mitigate not any other corresponding policies such as Term Auction Facility

Observation 2-The resolution is that the economic stimulus act will successfully mitigate the economic down turn in the next year. You do not win simply by showing that there was some mitigation. If the government spends enough money it's sure to have some effect. It has to be successful mitigation. That means that the stimulus act has to meet the expectations/goals of those that advocated and passed it. And it has to do that in the next year 2009.

Contention 1 this plan will increase the slowdowns
According to the Washington post, [Dollar Falls on Fears of U.S. Deficits, Nov 5,
http://www.washingtonpost.com... ] "The dollar continued its decline in global currency markets yesterday, intensifying worries among some economists that mounting U.S. budget and trade deficits could send the U.S. currency into a tailspin.", It is simple economics, when you put more money into the economy the dollar's value goes down and here is the problem with that. According to Goose, senior economist for PPI and the Democratic Leadership Council, 2007 [Austan, Why Deficits Still Matter, April, The Progressive Policy Institute, http://www.ppionline.org...], "as the risks associated with our accumulating debt grow, oil exporting countries will be tempted to sign their contracts in euro's or yen rather than dollars, as they do now. If that happens, then anything that devalues the dollar—including policy initiatives designed to reduce the trade deficit—will directly increase the price of energy rather markedly.", So very simply the tax rebates will drive up the U.S. deficit debt and because of that gas prices will go up because of the declining dollar. Gas prices cause inflation to happen and when inflation happens, prices of goods go up and people can't buy these goods. Spending will go up for a little bit, when the checks go in, but after that 2009 will be a full on depression with no spending because prices are so high. This will increase the slowdowns and will put us possibly in another great depression.

Contention 2: Will lower are economies

According to Orszag, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution, 2004 [The Budget Deficit: Does It Matter?, July 16, http://www.brookings.edu... ]
"one possible outcome of a large budget deficit and a low national saving rate is weak domestic investment. That is, the budget deficit could crowd out private investment in the United States. This crowding out is brought about through higher interest rates. The budget deficit soaks up available private saving – leaving a smaller pool of national saving to finance domestic investment. The higher interest rate dissuades some firms from undertaking their investment projects, with the net result that investment declines ", So the economic stimulus act which will raise the deficit, which will cut out domestic investment. Domestic investment gives jobs to Americans, when it cuts that out; it means job cuts across the board. It will make higher interest rates, which will cause the credit crunch to become even higher and a bigger problem, then right now. By lowering the economy, rather than promoting the economy it will cause are economy, the American economy to be in shambles.

Contention 3: Will hurt the world economy

According to New York Times, 2004 [IMF Says Rise in US Debts Is Threat to World's Economy, Jan 8, (http://www.globalpolicy.org... )
"With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the United States is running up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy ...large budget deficits pose "significant risks" not just for the United States but for the rest of the world. the United States' net financial obligations to the rest of the world could be equal to 40 percent of its total economy within a few years...that could play havoc with the value of the dollar and international exchange rates...."Higher borrowing costs abroad would mean that the adverse effects of U.S. fiscal deficits would spill over into global investment and output,", What this means is when anything hurts the world economy, it will come back to hurt are economy. So this economic stimulus will raise the foreign debt which will cause instability in the global economy, which will plunge us into a recession and possibly the world will get sucked in as well. This act is harmful to our deficit, which will be the trigger to the big recession which will last who knows how long. It won't mitigate it will make it worse and will cause too much instability.

Bascically it will raise the deficit to a huge amount and the effects of the deficit will be felt in 2009 harming the slowdowns, thus the economic slowdowns will not be mitigated it will be worse.
A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

First I'd like to refute my opponents case, then briefly form my own regarding the economic stimulus package.

For definitional purposes and observations I agree with my opponents standards, but ask that we clarify that we are not regarding the start of FY 2009, but actual 2009.

My opponents first claim is that the economic stimulus pack will actually further harm the economic slowdown America is currently receiving. He makes several claims, and for clarification purposes I will outline his essential arguments.
1. Spending from tax rebates (and the rebates themselves) will weaken the value of the dollar.
2. Gas prices will ultimately rise due to a rising dollar.
3. Massive inflation will result, and America's economy can't sustain this.

First, inflation on it's own is not necessarily an end all be all problem; in fact some inflation is good and necessary, it means growth. Marginal inflation thus isn't a problem, so keep this in mind. The argument holds that to fulfill this rebate, America will have to borrow currency from foreign investors, and as the international monetary market runs, investors value currency less as the debt increases. This would be true if this were how rebates work. If you recall in 2003, the rebates sent out for an average of $600 were given to Americans, but the very next tax year Americans had that 600 added to their tax returns. Essentially, the government forwarded a tax break to people now, which they would soon pay off. What this boils down to is two simple facts. First, little if any debt results from rebates because they are paid off by the tax payer, not a creation of currency. Second, any debt that does somehow result is quickly paid off, and is such a negligible amount that its' irrelevant on the international market. Since my opponents first major claim is proven incorrect, his further logic fails.

Next my opponent argues essentially that investment will be harmed from the plan; he is quite wrong, and see my first contention to see why.

Finally, he argues the "global" economy will be harmed. There are two responses to this argument, the logical fallacy argument, and the further explanation argument. Here they are: first my opponent assumes major debt increases, which is flawed, but also he argues non-resolutional. The resolution specifies U.S. downturn, not global. Further, if he attempts to argue that the U.S. downturn would harm the global economy, which will harm the U.S., the argument is circular and thus logically fallacious. Next, let's assume that foreign debt results (which in this debate I do not generally concede) What is this impact? Is foreign debt holding bad or good? Let's look to Alan Greenspan in his book, The Age of Turbulence. He argues, as an economist and not a journalist, that foreign investment is good because the interest off the debt has a multiplier effect into the economy, and the major countries who hold US debt are also major importers of US products, so specified to their currency, US products are more valuable. This proves my opponents line of logic incorrect.

Next, why the stimulus package will result in economic growth that meets my opponents criterion.
1. Investment will increase
MPS (marginal propensity to save) will increase
In response to my opponents claim, investment will actually increase; here's why: the MPS is increased with tax rebates, as seen in 2003. When the MPS increases, the loanable funds market has more funds, which increases investment and lowers interest rates. This impact is that lenders will have more liquidity, and lower interest rates, without inflation since currency is not created, instead is it adjusted and dispersed in a discretionary manner. The impact of this is that the housing market will be further settled, as lenders can begin to settle mortgages, and less large banks will need federal funds. (See Bear Sterns) Also, the increase in investment will have a multiplier effect on the economy, and when looking to the multiplier accelerator theory, an increase in the MPS is one of the greatest multipliers.
The major problems in today's economy are a lack of spending, a lack of investment, and a housing market problem. An increase in the MPS resulting from tax rebates addresses all these problems.

This point alone outweighs my opponents major claims. After the refutations and the resulting factors seen from an increase in the MPS, the economic stimulus package will mitigate the economic downturn, by counteracting it.
Debate Round No. 1
bigbass3000

Con

This is very simple, when you borrow money to put more money into the economy that money devalues the dollar. Devaluing the dollar tells other countries like oil producing one's to spend on euro or yen instead of the dollar, which devalue's the dollar even more. Two the huge deficit which is 265 billion right now because of the act will prevent domestic investment because countirs will see the U.S. as too risky to spend on. three it harms the countries giving the money because we have already borrowed a huge amount already.

Yes they are major importers but are trade deficit is at a astronomical level right now.

On his only contention this is the major flaw in his case and do not let him get away with it. Here is why he is saying the money will increase liquidity, but all that is going to happen will that money instead of being spent immediatly like he said it will take longer to have it all spent. This means simply I have one because this 165 billion act will not hit the economy until who knows when. It could hit the economy in 2018 for all we know, with his attack on resolutional the money he is talking about is not directly touching our economy it is indirectly touching it through banks so now that 160 billion dollars has now turned into 20 billion to be in the economy. DOn't let him get away with this judge, because saying all of it is going to the banks is only strengthening my case, because their 600 dollar rebate after it has gone through the banks may end up at the end to 200 or even less. The only way to vote is neg, he also dropped my 2 contention and has bastardised my con.1 and 3. Not understanding the concept at all
A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

For the record, online, don't address the infamous "judge." Also, instead of bastardizing, use "strawman fallacy" it sounds smarter, and it helps judges like you more.

On the rebates dispute, you're failing to realize that any debt resulting from a rebate isn't foreign debt. Furthermore, foreign debt only represents about 25% of all T-Note purchases. The actual problems you're talking about result from mounting debts that aren't paid. Any debt created by rebates is paid off rapidly. Failing to realize this has negated your entire claim. Secondly, you talk about how the government is simply "putting money in." This is false. The government isn't liquidated more currency, it's simply directing it. By taking money from an investor, and redistributing it, currency isn't created, it's redirected.

Secondly, you make it sound as if there is an international wave to run away from the dollar, when in fact a lot of the dollars' devaluing is at the hands of the federal reserve. It has been targeted, and exports have increased to the right countries.

For clarification, which contentions did i drop? I see that I refuted all of them, but I may have misread.

Finally, in refutation of my point, you failed to see my citation of the 2003 Bush Tax cuts. Further, economics teaches (something you fail to see) that when the MPS increases, interest rates will quickly decrease, and investment will result. You also fail to address how it will help the housing market, which, if helped alone, would jumpstart the economy.

Now for some bad PF rhetoric:
Don't let my opponent do that judge!
Debate Round No. 2
bigbass3000

Con

First off if the money is not borrowed from somewhere then why do we have a deficit of 260 billion dollars. Go to Fox News, type in budget deficit, that deficit is caused by the act. So it does increase our deficit, you don't know anything about economics. Actually the dollars value stays the same, but oil prices lead to inflation if you read my case, you would have got that.

You fail to see I already rebutted your previous point in my last speech. Second the tax rebates in 2003 had tax rate cuts as well. The EAS has not tax rate cuts there. So they have failed in the past. Your whole points or only one is banks will get liquidity, but did the framers of the act go yes go out there and put that chec in the bank, no because they want it spent on the economy not in the bank, because of what I said last time. Where a 165 billion act, only gets 20 billion spent in 2009. How is that successful mitigation. bush say "get that check and spend it.". So it is not doing what it is supposed to do, so the Aff cannot get up here and argue what he is arguing. He is now not topical because his economic benefits are not, repeat are not direct, they are indirect. It like this he is straining the money and claiming all the benefits of the same amount will be there. They won't, because no one is spending. Just read the aff has lost,

Objects of the most stupendous magnitude, measures which affect the lives of millions born and unborn our now before us. My worthy opponents have spoken with great ingenuity and eloquence. However you are not mitigating economic slowdowns when Americans are losing their jobs and their homes. I am not without apprehensions, but saying this act will successfully mitigate the recession with it being ill prepared as it is, would be to brave a storm in a ship made of paper. My judgement disproves this measure and my whole heart is any. All that I have, all that I am, and all that I hope for in this life, I am now ready to stake upon it. While I live give me a vote for the negative.
A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

A-ThiestSocialist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Creator 8 years ago
Creator
i have a 100% win ratio! YAY jk its not important
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 8 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
And, try not to be a dick when you argue.
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 8 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
Sorry, I was busy this week. Good luck!
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 8 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
Sorry for the delay, i'll be posting my arguments briefly. As a side note, I have done PF a few times, but my main event, which I qualified to NFL's in, is Congress. Be not disgruntled, for I will do my best to give you a strong showing, as I have been quite successful in Congress these past 3 years.
Posted by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
i would take it but i'm not making cases this month sorry
Posted by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
yes, I am trying to get ideas and practicing for Nat Quals.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
Is there some reason you are running this debate 5 times?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
bigbass3000A-ThiestSocialistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by aodanu16 8 years ago
aodanu16
bigbass3000A-ThiestSocialistTied
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 Creator 8 years ago
Creator
bigbass3000A-ThiestSocialistTied
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 8 years ago
nightshift
bigbass3000A-ThiestSocialistTied
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 cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
bigbass3000A-ThiestSocialistTied
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 
Vote Placed by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
bigbass3000A-ThiestSocialistTied
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 bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
bigbass3000A-ThiestSocialistTied
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 
Vote Placed by A-ThiestSocialist 8 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
bigbass3000A-ThiestSocialistTied
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