The Instigator
bigbass3000
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
thnbgr
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

POFO april Topic, POFOers only please.

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
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: 3/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,988 times Debate No: 3379
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (13)

 

bigbass3000

Pro

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

Definitions:
Successfully- Achieving the desired effect
Mitigate- decrease
Year- 2009

Contention 1: Money into economy

Whereas the Economic Stimulus Act is giving roughly $106 billion dollars to citizens that qualify, spending will increase within the nation. When this occurs companies are able to profit in turn mitigating the current recession. The recession is caused by citizens who're incapable due to debt (for the most part) from purchasing goods. As companies suffer due to loss in profit due to lack of buying, the economy suffers.

Contention 2: Federal Reserve

A)Money and Rates:

The Federal Reserve had injected $24 billion into the U.S. banking system and lowered the federal funds rate below the usual target rate of 5.25% to help stabilize the economy, August 9, 2007. Since then, the rates of the Federal funds rate have been reduced to its current level of 4.25%. Basically this means in addition to the economic stimulus alone, the Fed. Reserve is working with the banks of the U.S. to help lower the amount that banks are charged when they make an overnight loan to one another. This helps the economy by taking less money away from the banks, allowing it to fuel the economy, and at the same time giving direct funding to the economy in banks. This helps mitigate the economic recession.

B)Foreign and Central Banks

Through actions between the Federal Reserve and foreign central banks such as the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Swiss National Bank, the Federal Reserve was able to alleviate some funding pressures by making greater liquidity (ability or ease to convert assets into cash) available. Lines were established between the ECB and the Federal Reserve to swap currency, which funds non-U.S. institutions that would usually go to the interbank market as opposed to the U.S. Through liquidity provided from the ECB's short-term funding of about $500 billion, markets have been able to recover on an international level. Essentially U.S is working with foreign banks to circulate money, helping to raise the value. Pressures on the economy are being alleviated through the liquidity of the Federal Reserve. Also, through the ECB's funding in the interbank, some markets are able to recover.

Contention 3: Hirer wages

Higher wages are an easy way to increase economic activity in the sense that it increases the amount people are able to spend on U.S markets. Now it's easy to say that there are no guarantees that the money will be spent on personal ventures, but the fact of the matter is that many Americans are in over their heads in debt, and this hurts companies when these citizens aren't able to pay. This increased wage can easily help to pay back loans, and debts acquired through the years and this directly influences the economy. This may look like a costly method, but it is effective and will essentially benefit companies in general, and perhaps save this nation from facing a great economic recession.
thnbgr

Con

Contention 1: Does not attack the core of our economic slowdown.
The essence of our economic slowdown is caused by unemployment.
The 2008 economic stimulus act does not advocate any benefits for the unemployed.
Since the act does not attack the very core issues of our suffering economy, it thus will be insufficient in mitigating economic slowdowns.

Contention 2: "Consumer Confidence Boost" is empirically false.
Although the idea behind the stimulus package is mainly to increase consumer spending, the truth is: The tax incentives do not work.
1) Targets the wrong people.
It gives people with higher income more money, and people less well off with less money.
However, it fails to realize that people with less money are more likely to spend money given to them. Richer people are less likely to do so.
2) People will not spend this money.
Many people are in debts at the moment.
The act will only work if a substantial amount of people spend their rebates. However, over 60% already claimed that they will be either a) pocketing the cash, or b) paying taxes off.
With over half of the nation not actually spending the money, the stimulus act evidently 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.

REBUTTALS:
Contention 1:
The proposition claims that spending will increase.
This is flawed for two reasons:
1) As stated above, over half of the nation claims they will not be directly spending their cash. Thus, spending will not drastically increase. The opponent's arguments only work in theory, and as when applied realistically, it does not work.
2) $300 - $600 is not enough to boost the economy. With only 40% of the nation claiming to spend the money, this creates enough reason to doubt the actual validity of the half-a-K tax rebates. Even if all of the nation directly spends the money, there is still the chance that the stimulus act will not work.

Contention 2A:
The proposition states that the Federal Reserve is lowering interest rates.
We must ask ourselves: Where is the relevancy?
Let's keep in mind, we are talking about the 2008 Economic Stimulus Act, not the Federal Reserve's actions. Even if the opponent completely wins their argument, the only thing it would be saying is that the Federal Reserve is capable of mitigating economic slowdowns, not the stimulus act.
In short, the argument is non-relevant.

Contention 2B:
Once again, we come across a problem of relevancy. However, this time, the opponent decides to bring up the international European bank and their interactions with the Federal Reserve.
Not once is the 2008 Economic Stimulus Act's usefulness mentioned.
Once again, the argument is non-relevant.

Now with the 1st contention having empirically denied, and the 2nd contentions being quite irrelevant, we come across the last argument.

Contention 3:
The opponent says that more people are going to be hired.
There is no mention of HOW or WHY this would happen. We cannot just sit and expect the stimulus act to start lowering unemployment rates, and the proposition offers no evidence as to why it WOULD lower unemployment rates.
This argument clearly offers no clear reason as to why the 2008 Economic Stimulus Act would lower unemployment rates. The act will not decrease unemployment rates for the 2 arguments proposed by the opposition.

Thus, because the opponent's arguments are found to be quite irrelevant and unwarranted, negate.
Debate Round No. 1
bigbass3000

Pro

As far as your attack on the unemployed it does give about 30 million unemployed citizens rebates. The core reason the economy is suffering is because unemployment, as you say, well why is their unemoployment because of less consumer spending. Less profits equals less jobs, so what do you inject money into the economy, so business can profit and hire and cause a boost to carry on as it did in 2001.
To your first point, higher income, if you make more than 75,000 dollars you don't get a rebate, they are giving it to the middle class and lower income how are more likely to spend statisticly, get your facts right. Also you mention debt, but whether they spend or save or even pay off debts, that money is going to businesses and banks. So it will stimulate because it will put wealth into the economy to circulate in the middle class and lower class.
It does boost consumer spending because you are giving them money to spend.

"1) As stated above, over half of the nation claims they will not be directly spending their cash. Thus, spending will not drastically increase. The opponent's arguments only work in theory, and as when applied realistically, it does not work.", Yes they will spend, they spent 2/3 of it in 6 months in 2001 and this act is 3 times the size used in 2001.
"2) $300 - $600 is not enough to boost the economy. With only 40% of the nation claiming to spend the money, this creates enough reason to doubt the actual validity of the half-a-K tax rebates. Even if all of the nation directly spends the money, there is still the chance that the stimulus act will not work.", actually 300-1200. About 110 billion in tax rebates. Like I said whether they spend it or save it will mitigate the economy in some way.

It is relevant because the act and the federal reserve togeher with stop the recession.

very relevant believe me.
thnbgr

Con

OPPONENT'S CASE

First, I will point out key flaws in the opponent's last argument.

1) "It does give about 30 million unemployed citizens rebates".
I'm sure you are aware that America's current unemployment rate is around 4.8%. There are 320 million Americans. Unless you are proposing that almost 10% of our population is unemployed, the statistic is logically flawed.
(http://www.bls.gov...) The evidence is located at the center of the page, under "unemployment rate"

2) Furthermore, the statement as a whole is also flawed. It does not cover the unemployed.
The Stimulus Act does not supply unemployed Americans with extra benefits.
(http://www.usnews.com...
/01/28/economic-stimulus-how-it-works-or-fails.html)
(On unemployment) "These aren't part of the proposed plan"

Now, we've got two things cleared up.
1) The obvious flaw in our opponent's arguments clearly show how their evidence is false.
2) Unemployments are uncovered.

Now, the only argument the opponent makes is that unemployment rates will drop AFTER the Stimulus Plan works.
We are not granting the validity of the Stimulus Plan at this point. Thus, unemployment rates are also not definitely going to drop.

Therefore, any arguments in this debate regarding unemployments can be dropped, as the proposition has failed to support their evidence.

The opponent ONLY brings up unemployment in their last argument, so thus, the opponent has no offense.

Now, the only offense the proposition has now is their federal reserve argument.
It states: that the Economic Stimulus Plan will work because the Federal Reserve will work.

We are talking about whether the Economic Stimulus Plan will help the economy, not whether the Federal Reserve will be able to help the economy.

For instance, if I am not good at writing essays, and a friend writes my essay for me, the A that I receive as a grade is not my successfulness, rather my friend's achievement.

Similarly, if the economy is fixed, it is the job of the Federal Reserve, not the Economic Stimulus Plan.

The opponent now has no offense.

MY CASE
Moving on to the negative's (me) arguments.

1) "People will either pocket the cash or pay off in taxes, not directly helping the economy."
Opponent's argument: This plan is bigger than that of the plan in 2001.
Rebuttal: Clearly, we are not mentioning ANYTHING about the 2001 plan. This poll was asking citizens about the CURRENT economic stimulus plan.
The opponent's arguments are quite irrelevant, as we are talking nothing about 2001.

2) "Insufficient plan, since many will not actually spend the money."
Opponent's argument: Like I said whether they spend it or save it will mitigate the economy in some way.
Rebuttal: First off, they provide no reason as to why their argument is true.
It is untrue, however, simply because the economy will not benefit in any way IF people only use the money to pay off taxes. NO BUSINESSES ARE RECEIVING A SINGLE PENNY WHEN CITIZENS ARE PAYING THEIR TAXES. With over half of America paying off the taxes, half of America is not benefiting the economy.
Debate Round No. 2
bigbass3000

Pro

Excuse the 30 million are retired individuals and veterans, read the bill and learn something, these individuals are technicaly unemployed. Do the math as well and figure out how much money they get. Plus not everyone is getting a rebate check.

IT gives money to people who are retired and the reason they give it to unemployed people is because they are more likely to spend.

Have you read the act at all.

Yes we are in 2009, the act in going into affect on May 2008. According to many economists by 2009 we will see a upward trend, not a downward trend.

No the Federal Reserve and the Act have to work together to achieve this act, by the way, where did they get the money to get this the federal reserve.

People are not going to pay taxes with it. Because they don't have to till 2009, and that means it will be in the bank and you are seriously telling me that almost everyone is going to pay the IRS with this, when the only reason they are getting it is because they already payed their taxes.

People are going to do about three things with it according to CNN. 27% spend it. 32% save it 41% pay off bills. EIther one of these things is going to help the economy. WHether they bank it, or spend it. Paying off bills helps too.

Vote for the Aff because my opponent clearly does not know what he is talking about.
thnbgr

Con

First off, 30 million Americans are not unemployed. There is a reason the United States evaluates the unemployment rate at 4.8%, not 10%.
However, this is still very trivial next to the fact that the Stimulus Act still does not cover any of them. (I back my claim with actual evidence. I am yet to see my opponent attempt at doing so.)

Now, the unemployment argument is once again kept at bay.

Argument #1 is gone.

Arg. #2:
Yes we are in 2009, the act in going into affect on May 2008. According to many economists by 2009 we will see a upward trend, not a downward trend.

Wow. Where did 2009 come in again? The opponent was talking about 2001... and something about how that act related to the 2008 act... and now we are jumping around to 2009. Whatever the reason, JUST BECAUSE SEVERAL ECONOMISTS SAY WE WILL SEE AN UPWARD TREND, IT DOESN'T MEAN WE WILL. I'M SURE THERE ARE JUST AS MANY, IF NOT MORE, ECONOMISTS CLAIMING THAT THE STIMULUS ACT WILL NOT WORK.

Arg. #3:
The Federal Reserve and the International Market will work with the Stimulus Act to mitigate the economic slowdown.

I'm sure you haven't read the resolution.
"The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate the economic slowdowns by the next year."

I'm pretty sure it didn't mention the Federal Reserve for a reason. Even if the opponent were to prove that the Stimulus Act, working with the Federal Reserve, will mitigate economic slowdowns, it still does not prove that the Stimulus Act alone will. Once again, I stress, those arg. #3 is irrelevant.

[As so far, the only thing my opponent can hope to prove is that, with the help of the Federal Reserve, the Stimulus Act can mitigate slowdowns. (I'm sorry, but we're not talking about the Federal Reserve.)]

Finally, :
People are going to do about three things with it according to CNN. 27% spend it. 32% save it 41% pay off bills. EIther one of these things is going to help the economy. WHether they bank it, or spend it. Paying off bills helps too.

This first of all mean that 73% will not spend it. Paying off bills will only fill an already existent deficit. There is no expansion there.
No Expansion Means No Economic Growth.

For the above reasons, negate.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
I had this debate before and this was some finacial advice given to me by theses people:Hey jhillman, Bigbass and kelstwa, I am happy to report on your financial genius on economics. I made it a point to follow up you your financial advice. Here are the results since we last communicated:

Gold is down $60 an ounce as I predicted.

Thorium is currently not even mined in the U.S and only one Company is currently trading in this element and it has been acquired by another company over seas It was trading at a whopping .80 cents a share it is now defunct and no longer trading.

Banks: double digit losses on almost all of them.

So to recap, You kids don't know your a## from your face when it comes to economics. If i had taken your brilliant advice Id be piss broke!!
Posted by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
pro, you dont go into much detail whatsoever, just glossing over your points, not providing much evidence and little logic.
con, you make the same mistake in your own case, but make up for it in rebutals.
pro, you still dont make teh connection between giving people money and more jobs. just saying that it will give unemployed people rebates. you dont have any reasoning behind why the fed is relevant, just saying it is. again, you gloss over your points without much logic and less evidence.
con, you did a better job attacking the fed point before, this one doesnt attack its topicality very well. tax season will be over when people receive rebates, so i dont see how they will be paying off taxes. do you mean debt/loans/bills?
pro, dont insult your opponent. and you still dont have a good reason for the feds topicality, as the res specifys the act, which will be carryed out by the IRS.
con, you agreed to pros def of year by default, it is too late to attack it now.
i vote con because pro (who has the burden of proof here) fails to prove that the stimulus alone will help the economy.

pub forum is way better then policy and LD, expessially policy.
Posted by whitesoxfan450 9 years ago
whitesoxfan450
Lol, true Pluto, Policy is best, so is LD
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
POLICY OWNS PUFO!!!! (25 characters)
Posted by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
yea, the federal reserve is not my case. It's my partners and I told him it was
Posted by thnbgr 9 years ago
thnbgr
Just to be clear, as the Pro, do you understand my arguments on how the Federal Reserve is irrelevant?
Posted by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
Sure I have otther cases on here
Posted by SchinkBR 9 years ago
SchinkBR
Very good points on both sides. Just so both of you know, the term "unemployed" technically only means people who are actively looking for a job but don't have one (thus retired people don't count).

Cite your sources pro if this is suppose to be a PF debate
Posted by SchinkBR 9 years ago
SchinkBR
Hey, I went to nationals last year and even though i'm in college now, if either of you want to debate me on this i'd be more than willing to help you out for your april topic
Posted by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
Really cause there are debate like this in the challenge period right now.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by aodanu16 8 years ago
aodanu16
bigbass3000thnbgrTied
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 natelex7791 9 years ago
natelex7791
bigbass3000thnbgrTied
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 rnsweetswimn1 9 years ago
rnsweetswimn1
bigbass3000thnbgrTied
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 rnsweetheart 9 years ago
rnsweetheart
bigbass3000thnbgrTied
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 SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
bigbass3000thnbgrTied
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 Level27 9 years ago
Level27
bigbass3000thnbgrTied
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 Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
bigbass3000thnbgrTied
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 Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
bigbass3000thnbgrTied
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 ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
bigbass3000thnbgrTied
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 Creator 9 years ago
Creator
bigbass3000thnbgrTied
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