The Instigator
youngpolitic
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points
The Contender
pcmbrown
Con (against)
Losing
38 Points

Obama's Stimulas Package Was an Utter Failure and a Second Stimulas is Unacceptable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 7/6/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,821 times Debate No: 8899
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (14)

 

youngpolitic

Pro

I will let my opponent start this debate. I would first like to set up a few ground rules.
No insults
No cussing
and please do not act like you are better than anyone else

First I would like to define the what I mean by Stimulas Package. I am talking about the multibillion dollar spending bill passed a few months ago by the Obama administration.

Please follow these rules and I challenge anyone who wants to take my debate.

Thank you
pcmbrown

Con

I am presuming that my opponent refers to this stimulus package: http://socialistworld.net.... If not, a link to the referenced package would be appreciated.

First off, the resolution contains two claims, both of which must be upheld by my opponent. Second, I'm not entirely convinced of the stimulus package's efficacy. However, it is only necessary for me to disprove one of my opponent's two claims. Ergo, I negate: "A Second Stimulas(sic) is Unacceptable".

unacceptable: not pleasing or welcome-Merriam-Webster

1. The Stimulus Package is essentially a gift of money, to states, businesses, and families. It is therefore quite pleasing and welcome. Would you be displeased by a gift of money?

2. The Stimulus package enjoyed widespread public support. A Gallup poll shows 59% in favor of the package, with only 33% opposed. Ergo, the public is pleased by said package, and welcomes it. [1]

[1] http://www.gallup.com...
Debate Round No. 1
youngpolitic

Pro

I thank you for accepting my debate.

I am going to now argue against your two points.

1. The Stimulus Package is certainly NOT a gift of money of any sorts. The money is not free, it will have to be paid back by tax payer money so the money is not a gift. It is an extensive loan taken out by the government in the peoples' name. This stimulus package did nothing to stimulate anything in the economy. The money went straight from the reserves into government run programs. No new jobs were created, no new businesses were opened or stimulated. It is NOT a gift it was government funding for government programs. Not pleasing and unwelcome.

2. The public welcomed it before they saw how useless it turned out to be. They do not welcome it now, more recently it says that it lost major support and is now considered unfavorable.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com...
pcmbrown

Con

1. The Stimulus Package may be a loan, but much of the American public perceives it as a gift. The liberal administration shows no intent to lower the deficit during the current recession, and given past U.S. fiscal policy, it is unlikely that most American citizens alive today will be responsible for this financial burden. Though the Stimulus Package may not be fiscally sound, the American public will welcome, and be pleased by, the instant gratification brought by the Stimulus Package.

2. Oddly enough, my study was released after your own, and contains data prior to the others' publication.
Debate Round No. 2
youngpolitic

Pro

1. But the American people are not seeing any of this money! Like I said earlier the money is going back into government programs so the American people as a whole are not seeing the benefits of any of this money. How can you welcome a gift that they are not seeing any part of? It is being spent on road signs in Michigan telling drivers which roads are being funded by Stimulus dollars. It's a big waste, how can you welcome a waste of money that isn't even being wasted on you.

2. That is odd, I'm going to do more research and I'll get back to you next round on that one.
pcmbrown

Con

1. Approximately 30% of the stimulus package consisted of direct rebates and tax cuts [2]. My opponent's point is clearly false.

2. For now, consider my argument extended. Also, public opinion aside, the Stimulus Package itself is undoubtedly pleasing. Only its long-term consequences may, or may not be welcome.

[2] http://www.savingtoinvest.com...
Debate Round No. 3
youngpolitic

Pro

1. I have not seen any tax rebates or cuts in the middle class. The only group that got a tax rebate that I can see was the retirement class. People 65 and over got $500 each but that is not the middle class. America is defined by it's middle class which got no stimulus money or tax cuts.

2. How can it be pleasing when 90% of the money can't be spent until after 2010? That can't be pleasing now and today.

I would like to wrap up by saying that the first stimulus package obviously did not work. Barely anyone saw any of the money go anywhere and a second attempt at this is totally unacceptable. The first package can't even be spent until 2010 so why create a second one when the first one hasn't even taken full effect yet? The whole thing seems stupid and I encourage people to vote Pro. Thank you.
pcmbrown

Con

1. These tax rebates are occurring, I personally received one [3]. I'm entirely unaware of reasons why you would not have received one.

2. This contention was in no way answered. Please extend: "Public opinion favors the package. Ergo, it is pleasing and welcome".

"2". The expectation of money is certainly pleasing. Also, 100 billion dollars (1/10 of the package) certainly constitutes a pleasing, and welcome tax cut.

My opponent has not presented a case, as Pro. Further, he has not successfully rebutted my points. Thanks for reading, thanks for the debate, and Vote Con.

[3] http://www.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
The CRA forces banks to give loans out to lower income people.
In other words people who may have a hard time paying the bank back.
Also, the fed reimburses the CRA banks every time they have a loss. Which makes their numbers look better then what they really are. I do not think I will convince you and you will never convince me so lets drop it.
Posted by DutchPointer 7 years ago
DutchPointer
In the Roman Empire were laws for trade, military service, civil government and judicial authorities with taxes and statute labor. Government intervention was sometimes delegated to native rulers. Your fantasy isn't a good historian, but it's your dogma that things go wrong as soon as things are regulated in an orderly way to give people safety, rights, securities and duties.
Also your ideas about the CRA are wrong and the total opposite is true. The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.
The law, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and DOES NOT REQUIRE TO MAKE HIGH-RISK LOANS that may bring losses to the institution. An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.
Experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton, stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies, not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
"relayed"
repayed

sorry for the typo
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Actually, the Roman empire fell when their government began meddling with the economy. The Roman empire at one point was flourishing because there was little to no government intervention.

Also, sure the CRA made loans easier to those people but that's because banks were forced to give out loans to people who the banks felt may not be able to pay back. Which happened many of these forced loan people never relayed the bank. The bank has (had) policies to prevent bank losses until the government stomped all over it.
Posted by DutchPointer 7 years ago
DutchPointer
<continuing>
Contributory factors in the shortage of direct lending in low- and moderate-income communities were a limited secondary market for mortgages, informational problems to do with the lack of credit evaluations for lower-income borrowers, and lack of coordination among credit agencies.
In Congressional debate on the Act, critics charged that the law would create unnecessary regulatory burdens. Partly in response to these concerns, Congress included little prescriptive detail and simply directs the banking regulatory agencies to ensure that banks and savings associations serve the credit needs of their local communities in a safe and sound manner. Community groups only slowly organized to take advantage of their right under the Act to complain about law enforcement of the regulations.

So, "in a safe and sound manner" means not beyond the financial strength, thus, cheap houses for poor people, but without proper regulations in later Bush-years that principle exploded in the housing bubble.
Furthermore the Community Reinvestment Act is changed not less than 10 times and even by now there are new proposals.
The Act was meant to end discrimination, not to end clear oversight and strict regulation. If the banks shouldn't have got free play it would not have run wild.
By the way, low-budget mortgages is not a large part of the problem. The culture of greed is much more cultivated by middle incomes.
Posted by DutchPointer 7 years ago
DutchPointer
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed and signed by Dimmie Carter (1977) as a result of national pressure to address the deteriorating conditions of American cities—particularly lower-income and minority neighborhoods. Community activists, such as Gale Cincotta of National People's Action in Chicago, had led the national fight to pass, and later to enforce the Act.
The CRA followed similar laws passed to reduce discrimination in the credit and housing markets including the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA). The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or other personal characteristics. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires that financial institutions publicly disclose mortgage lending and application data. In contrast with those acts, the CRA seeks to ensure the provision of credit to all parts of a community, regardless of the relative wealth or poverty of a neighborhood.
Before the Act was passed, there were severe shortages of credit available to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. In their 1961 report, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that African-American borrowers were often required to make higher down-payments and adopt faster repayment schedules. The commission also documented blanket refusals to lend in particular areas (redlining). The "redlining" of certain neighborhoods originated with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in the 1930s. The "residential security maps" created by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) for the FHA were used by private and public entities for years afterwards to withhold mortgage capital from neighborhoods that were deemed "unsafe".
<continue next post>
Posted by DutchPointer 7 years ago
DutchPointer
@Keith,
Indeed the market will correct itself, but that will take several centuries and during that time the civil society is ruined and decimated by starvation and bloody turmoil. If the economy of the Roman Empire did not correct itself, there wouldn't be an Italy by now. Of course it is evidential that American life is more simple when only 5% (those in fertile rural regions, who are completely self-supporting with food, clothing, housing and self-defense) will survive the total collapse. It is the way Zimbabwe has to go and Pol Pot did it his own way. It's the way of real libertarians, right (14 centuries) backwards to the dark ages, with the former bankers as your feudal rulers.
A sophisticated complex society, like all the developed western countries, is very vulnerable for economic weakness and a collapse will evolve very fast and drastic in a huge crisis like the current one. Without bailout, TARP and the stimulus package your dollar should already have been fallen to be the cheapest wallpaper and while the USA isn't self-supporting anymore but dependent on energy and manufacturing power from abroad, you can very easily see how the shortages of all basic needs will rampage, destroying you with the perfectly predictable isolation from the rest of the world. We don't help Zimbabwe, like we did not help Pol Pot and we will not help the USA either, if they make that kind of bad choices after they took us down too. If the USA doesn't participate in a constructive recovering way with us (Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and Russia) your country will be lost within a year. About 95% of you will not have a future anymore, cause you are not used to live in the deepest poverty with no light at the end of the tunnel.
Canada will close its borders and you have to flee to Mexico on your bare feet.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
The economy runs much more simplistically then you think if you let the economy run its course you will find that the market will correct itself in times of recession.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
"Also, Congress only repealed PART of the act one of the biggest problems was never repealed."

Just for clarification I was talking about the Glass-Steagall act.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Obviously the housing bubble was caused by more then one factor that is common knowledge I was pointing out one of the MAJOR causes. By the way all throughout the 1800's every recession that occurred was dealt with using laissez faire policy the market ALWAYS works its way out if you let it be. Also, the standards were originally made by the banks. The government intervened and forced banks to give out easier loans. This economic crisis was years in the making have you heard of the CRA? Community reinvestment act I am sure you have not heard of this. This act forced banks to give out easier loans to certain people, often people who cannot afford the loans. Ever since the passage of this act people have often bullied the banks into giving out bad loans. People wouldn't even have lived out their means if loans were not so easy to come by, that is the point. Also, Congress only repealed PART of the act one of the biggest problems was never repealed. Insurance is a huge problem with the act, which allowed banks to make risky loans without worry. Congress only repealed the law prohibiting institutions from combining as investment bank, a commercial bank, and or an insurance company.(Which is a good thing.) By not allowing them to do this it prevents banks, securities, firms, and other financial companies to operate effectively, and to also provide the products and services their customers desire, and to fuel economic growth.

Also, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act was not truly deregulatory it increased the insurance up to $100,000 which again allowed banks to give out bad loans without worry.

If you believe laissez faire is a joke why dont you go live in Cuba where the government controls every aspect of your life?
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
youngpoliticpcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter bomb.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
youngpoliticpcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had to correct lies made by pro and the lack of evidence for pros arguments made me side with con
Vote Placed by cmrnprk07 7 years ago
cmrnprk07
youngpoliticpcmbrownTied
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 rimshot515 7 years ago
rimshot515
youngpoliticpcmbrownTied
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 Xer 7 years ago
Xer
youngpoliticpcmbrownTied
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 Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
youngpoliticpcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by youngpolitic 7 years ago
youngpolitic
youngpoliticpcmbrownTied
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 tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
youngpoliticpcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Josh17 7 years ago
Josh17
youngpoliticpcmbrownTied
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 cbass28 7 years ago
cbass28
youngpoliticpcmbrownTied
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