The Instigator
bigbass3000
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
debaterstud18
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

POFO debaters April topic, Practice only POFOers 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: 1,860 times Debate No: 3378
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (11)

 

bigbass3000

Pro

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

Economic Stimulus Act of 2008-The bill provides temporary tax incentives for businesses to make investments in their companies so that we create new jobs this year. The bill provides individual tax relief in the form of tax rebates. These rebates will amount to as much as $600 for individuals and $1,200 for married couples, with additional rebates for families with children. The bill also allows Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy bigger loans to save form the subprime mortgage disaster. It was signed into action by George Bush on Feb. 13, 2008.

Mitigate-To become milder

Economic slowdowns-When the economy begins slow its economic growth, e.g. jobs, consumer products.

Overview 1: The idea is to give back some money to households so that they spend. Spending means more sales for businesses, and so more profits. If firms are profitable, they will keep employing households, which allow the latter to continue to spend, and so help businesses, etc. This is how it will work.

Overview 2: As the Affirmative team we must prove successful mitigation, meaning it will do or come close to what the advocates of the bill said it was going to do. Which simply means I the Aff won't be abusive, by saying any mitigation is going to win me the debate, no. I have to prove successful mitigation.

Con.1-Tax rebates work

Sub point A-Tax rebates

According to TMC.net CBO: Tax Rebates & Cash Are Good Stimuli January 15, 2008" It said lump-sum tax rebates like the $300-600 rebates delivered to taxpayers seven years ago are among the more cost-effective ways for Congress to jump-start the economy, though CBO cautioned that rebates are more effective when given to middle- and lower-income taxpayers more likely to spend it.", So tax rebates are the best stimulus to start the economy up quickly and cost effective. This means it worked before in the past and it will work now. As they said it is more effective with the middle class and lower class. The cut off income for the rebates is 75,000 per person or 150,000 for couples. It is going to be effective because it is going into the hands of the people are most effective which makes it successful because it is given to the right people.

Little b- Has worked in the past

According to businessweek.com "Research Backs Rebates" by Francesca Di Meglio March 16, 2008" Conventional academic theory, according to the paper, is that consumers don't respond to temporary measures such as tax rebates. However, the researchers could match the receipt of the rebates with higher spending levels and concluded that the 2001 rebates provided a "substantial" stimulus to the economy. ", This means they have worked in the past to mitigate, so they will work again. This takes out the whole idea of it not working and shows it was a substantial stimulus, which means it is successful. And The advocates of the bill are expecting the same effects of the last stimulus package.

Con.2 Business incentives

The bill also provides business incentives, which have tax deduction for businesses that set up new programs, which provide jobs. These incentives simply mean, the bill creates jobs and investment which has been declining, according to Ron Scherer | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor from the January 22, 2008 edition," "He also estimates that would support some 400,000 jobs". Meaning the bill in all with provide 400,000 jobs.

Con.3 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

One of the biggest problems with the economy is subprime mortgages. They are mortgages that have high interest and are given to those who have risky credit. The problem is that according to Eric Tymoigne assistant professor at Fresno State University, They have contributed to about 2 million foreclosures. This means banks lose money and when that happens, they can't work with the individuals to make a deal, because, they can't. They don't have money to sustain their business. So what does Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do, they purchase mortgage loans, and then, after pooling the loans, sell them as securities to the public. Since foreclosure is happening, they swoop in and buy the houses from the banks at the price they were loaned too and it helps the bank and the consumer. What do they do with this property; well they sell it back to the public. This helps mitigate the housing crisis, by buying up an amount of bad mortgages. Now, they already have been doing this, but there are certain properties that are so huge, that they would leave a heavy blow on the economy. The act allows Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy these huge loans, to prevent disaster. This will do its job anyway in being successful because they have already done this kind of stuff before.

Con.4 Sociological boost

"There could be a psychological lift that ends the current gloom-and-doom atmosphere in corporate boardrooms. On Monday, the world glimpsed the depth of negativism when stock markets from Europe to Canada to Asia nose-dived. The US markets were closed for the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. Economist Ethan Harris of Lehman Brothers offers a slightly different analysis. He estimates that a stimulus package of $100 billion could add 0.8 percent growth to the second quarter and 0.2 percent to the third quarter. "Perhaps even more important," he writes in a research report to his clients, "the policy would provide a psychological boost to the economy." This means that it will boost the economy with providing hope to all the gloom that is happening.

Sub Point B Just enough to stimulate

It is basic Keynesian economics, which are country is based on, one of the main reasons are economy is slowing is because people are not spending their cash. So what do you do to help the economy, you put cash in the American people hands. It is big enough, because it is 1% of our G.D.P., which according to (The Economist January 17, 2008 "Stampede to stimulus"), "1% of the G.D.P. is just enough to get us out of our funk". So the government gives money to the citizens to spend, thus spending on commodities like gas, food, or even bills. American are struggling right now, people are living pay check to pay check and this act will help the middle class, who are the ones feelings the heaviest blow. Secondly it has been done in the past and people did spend the money on the economy, but this time it is even more money. "Altogether, the government is hoping to add $145 billion to the economy. While the exact amount per person hasn't been determined, some estimates on Capitol Hill put it at $800 per taxpayer. This would be almost four times the amount the government spent in 2002, the last time it tried to stimulate the economy."

Little C-Middle Class

Also according to http://www.themiddleclass.org... ," a smart economic stimulus plan could prevent the downturn or soften its effects, but not just any stimulus package will do. To be effective, an economic stimulus package must direct money to those who will spend it quickly, boosting consumer demand and prompting increased production and economic growth. This Senate bill provides even more effective stimulus than the House legislation because the tax rebates are even more closely targeted to cash-strapped middle-class and aspiring middle-class Americans, who are more likely than wealthier people to spend the money they receive immediately, rather than saving it.", And that is exactly what this bill does for the American people.
debaterstud18

Con

Alright so as the negative I am going to accept his definitions and overviews, with one exception. I am going to say that on his second overview of this round that he explains a standard for us to debate that is substantial, because at the point where he doesn't there is no bright line to affirm this resolution and you default negative. So he needs to provide you a substantial number that will be the brightline by which he judges this round. I am also going to introduce one final overview to this round.
Overview 1: In order to win this round he needs to prove that there is a direct CAUSATIONAL link between this economic stimulus package and any economic benefits. This means that just because he says our economy will recover he needs to prove that this is the cause, not that both things occur simultaneously but that this package will CAUSE the economic benefits not that they will happen by themselves.

Contention 1: Harms of doing this
The fact remains that our government is running a substantial budget deficit, and at that point this "deficit spending" is going to hurt out economy. Look to this analogy to understand the argument if you are in a room with 3 people and one of your friends gives your other friend 10 dollars, what actual money is generated? Cross apply this analogy, by supporting this bill we understand that the money is being taken from our government to be given to us. So now either the government spends less on important issues like health care and well fare or they print more money. This printing of more money lowers the value of the currency and at that point the money given to us is no longer that beneficial in so far as this rebate will raise the price of goods and services more then the 600 dollars we receive this year. So looking in retrospect we see that logically if we get the money it has to come from somewhere and because this act doesn't specifically tell you we must go under the assumption that we will continue deficit spending. In so far as we continue deficit spending there is no way this can solve.

Contention 2: Rebates won't solve
The fact is that in order for the rebates to attempt to solve the issue they need to stimulate spending. The fact is that according to a study done by International Council of Shopping Centers, only 24% of people said they would spend the money. Therefore we won't see the boost into the economy all we will see is the inflation mentioned above so there is no way we can do this. Also this bill does not do enough to solve the problems, the biggest cost of our economic down turn is the lessening of the dollar, and the struggling of the housing market. In so far as this act harms our dollar even more by increasing inflation which limits the buying power of the dollar you see you must vote negative right there. Then this bill does far from enough to solve the sub prime mortgage crisis and the rest of the credit card predatory practices that have lead to the increase in consumer debt, and foreclosures. These foreclosures not only directly harms the people whose home is foreclosed on but it also negative effects the entire market because the market is based on other house sales so it drives down the whole market. Therefore because it will not solve the problems logically you negate right there.

Contention 3: Rebates don't work
Harold Black Professor of Finance, University of Tennessee explains "no package of transitory and temporary measures has ever been effective in stimulating economic growth. Even the politicians know this. Historically the only stimulus measures that have had a lasting impact have been
those that are more permanent." This is shown time and time again when analysts explain that it wasn't the 2001 stimulus given to solve the problem but it was the 2003 tax cuts. Brian Riedl explains THAT even after the tax rebate of 2001 The economy remained stagnant through 2001 and much of 2002.
It was not until the 2003 tax cuts—which instead cut tax rates for workers and investors—that the economy finally and immediately recovered. This act does not actually cut taxes so the affirmative can not claim the benefits of a tax cut under the status quo. Therefore because historically the rebates don't work, you vote negative.

Now to his case.
Contention 1:Tax Rebates Work
So for response look back to my case where I show you the logical reason that they don't work, how they didn't work in the past and finally why they don't solve for the problems so they can't solve the problem this time.
Sub contention a:Tax rebates- His main argument here is that because it goes to the lower and middle income families the rebates are more likely to be spent. However, in the study of these " low and middle income families" I show you that only 1/4 of them actually plan to spend so his advocacy that they will spend is empirically false.
Sub contention b: Has Worked in the past
I show you where it doesn't work and why. His quote says that we respond to them on paper but magically it happened. The more spending by consumers is good how ever i show you that it didn't actually help our economy and he doesnt doesn't prove to you that this increase in spending is actually due to the stimulus package. All he says is that people got receipts and there was spending, that doesn't show the link. For example I can ride my bike and get fat, but that doesn't mean riding my bike made me fat. Therefore because of my second overview you drop this from the round.

Contention 2: Business Incentives
First off, he doesn't explain how it will actually go about creating jobs, all he does is provide you a quote. Now look at the quote and see that it doesn't account for the jobs lost, because the money comes from somewhere so if it is creating jobs in one sector jobs will be lost in another. That argument by me is supported by his own quote, notice the fact that it doesn't say a net increase or anything synonymous all it says is jobs will be created with out accounting for jobs lost.

Con.3 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
He doesn't explain what this plan does to advance this program and therefore these "benefits" he proposes can't be attributed to this package because we don't know if these benefits would be achieved by not having this act. Also if they sell them back to the market at a lower price its going to drive down the rest of the market because as i discussed above the market is intertwined so therefore this contention turns to my side.

Con.4 Sociological boost
First off his evidence never says there will be just that there maybe, so lets look to why there won't be. Since people know this is a temporary solution and will eventually have to be paid back by us we don't get this boost. If we did get this sociological boost on the economy we would spend the money as opposed to not as the evidence provided above. The logic is that if we are confident in the economy we spend more, and that is shown time and time again.
little b. Its just enough
He doesn't show you directly how this package will solve the problem all he says is its enough, that may be true. 1% of the GDP maybe enough to solve the problem if the package was capable of solving the problem which its not so therefore that claim means little to nothing.
Little C-Middle Class
He provides you evidence from middle class saying " a smart economic stimulus plan could prevent the downturn or soften its effects, but not just any stimulus package will do. To be effective, an economic stimulus package must direct money to those who will spend it quickly, boosting consumer demand and prompting increased production and economic growth." How ever lets look to this argument and see what it really . First off in order to be effective it needs to be given to those who will spend it but at the point where less then 1/4 of the people will spend the money by his how evidence it can't be sucessful.

Therefore I urge a negative ballot.
Debate Round No. 1
bigbass3000

Pro

I don't have to prove are economy will recover I have to prove successful mitigation, not the end to the recession.

Your contention 1 has to do with budget deficit, but it is not topical because budget deficits do not have harms until years later, not 2009 and you have to have deficits to help downturns, so you are saying it will harm us in the far future not now so disregard this evidence.

To your contention 1.The bill says successful mitigation, the government is expecting the effects of the last stimulus bill which was in 2001 with a little better outcome because it is a bigger act, so it is successful, successful mitigation does not mean it all has to be spent. Why? If you spend you help business make profit, profit equals jobs. If you pay off bills you still are paying off businesses. If you save it, then banks have liquidity that they can use to work with individuals to prevent foreclosures which continue the downturn. So it is mitigating the probelm.

First off I have evidence as of March, http://www.businessweek.com...
according to this research from another source a newer source the tax rebates provided a substantial stimulus and like I said it.

I am not going to say anything to your attacks other than blaah. Vote Aff.
debaterstud18

Con

Ok so on your definitional response I agree but, you need to prove sucessful mitigation that is directly attributed to this act. Not slight lessening that you can't directly attribute to this act so up till now you haven't.

On your response to my first contention, first of all i provide evidence that it was not actually sucessful and logic out why. But even if you provide evidence in your case that says in order to be sucessful "an economic stimulus package must direct money to those who will spend it quickly" So at the point where we obviously agree it won't be spent you negate there.Because if its not spent by your own evidence we can see it to not be able to sucesfully mitigate, and therefore not fufilling your side of the resolution.Also as far as the saving and paying of bills is benefitial that doesn't make sense because by them not spending the money it doesn't provide a stimulus sucessfully under your own evidence.

Ok and as far as your new evidence that it work I have provided counter evidence that says it didn't work, how ever even if it did. How does your advocacy account for the fact that these recessions are based upon different things, this one is based on the housing market collapse while that wasn't so the fact that we aren't 100% sure it solved the problem last time coupled with the fact that the causes are different leads us to beleive it probably won't sucessfully mitigate.

Now You don;t attack my overview which said you need to provide a CAUSATIONAL link, and to this point you have not which is an issue, because until you direclty prove to me how this is going to solve you can't get a negative ballot.

Next you have no answer to the harms other then saying they won't happen this year. However that is not true because inflation will happen IMMEDIATELY and raise our costs of living so lets extend that. Next you need to see that if we know that there will be many consequences then we will not get a socialogical boost which contradicts and logically takes out your next arguement.

Then you don't respond to the logic for why they won't solve, in fact your own evidence provided in your case agrees. Your case says it needs to be spent but I prove it won't be spent, so at that point look to the neg.

Then you don't respond to my professors saying that this type of action has never worked by itsself. All you say is well someone sayds the 2001 act helped. However I explain to you that the economy did remain stagnant and that TAX CUTS a little later did solve the problems. The reason the economy remained stagnant was people didn't spend the tax cuts and the logic behind it is faulty as I explained in my case so vote negative there.

Finally on my responses to his case all he said was "I am not going to say anything to your attacks other than blaah. Vote Aff." Well the fact that he hasn't said anything to my responses means that we should extend them and see the flaws in his case which he hasn't responded to. Insofar as that is the case we must vote Neg.
Debate Round No. 2
bigbass3000

Pro

No it is given to the people most likely to spend. Meaning the probability is higher. The success is not from spending it all. The success is because the amount it is going to be is 21% will spend. If they gave it to different groups it would be 10% or 15%. The middle class is what makes it successful I have already explained myself vote Aff.
debaterstud18

Con

Ok like lets look to his last arguement first then ill show you again why to negate. So he argues that 21% of the people will spend but thats not enough, which is why it has never worked in the past. Also I show you that it will lead to more inflation and lower the value of our dollar which he never refutes so that is a voter. The important of this is that it will negate any benefits this may provide and leave us WORSE of overall.
Now lets look at the negative voting issues.
1.) On the top he never gives you a brightline for sucessfully mitgating at that point he doesn't show you that this act would achieve this so we negate.
2.)He never responds to or solves for my overview that he needs to prove that there needs to be direct benefits from this and that this WILL BE THE CAUSE of the economy getting better. Nor does he show you that the economy will get better at all.
3.) He doesn't show you directly how this act solves for the problems in our economy including the realestate collapse and the falling only the dollar, in fact he furthers that claim and at that point you vote neg.
4.) He doesn't respond to any of my refutations to his case that I provide to him in my first speech and at that point lets extend those and see the holes in his advocacy and vote neg there.
5.)He doesn't provide you any voting issues or any direct reason to affirm.
6.) He has no responses to the harms of deficit spending and doesn't respond to my analogy which explains the reason this doesn't work.
7.) On the same type of note he doesn't respond to the logic of why it won't work nor does he respond to any of my case.
So because he doesn't meet my burdens or his, doesn't respond to my case or my responses to his case and can't prove to you any sucessful mitigation or any slight mitigation for that matter you will vote for the NEGATIVE.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by debaterstud18 9 years ago
debaterstud18
When you vote do me a favor and leave feed back, like why you voted the way you did and where improvements can be made and if you have any facts or assistance.
Posted by FalseReality 9 years ago
FalseReality
Maybe you should rename yourself EcoStimAct08
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by aodanu16 8 years ago
aodanu16
bigbass3000debaterstud18Tied
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
bigbass3000debaterstud18Tied
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 A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
bigbass3000debaterstud18Tied
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
bigbass3000debaterstud18Tied
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
bigbass3000debaterstud18Tied
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
bigbass3000debaterstud18Tied
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 adambain8 9 years ago
adambain8
bigbass3000debaterstud18Tied
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
bigbass3000debaterstud18Tied
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 realpolitik45 9 years ago
realpolitik45
bigbass3000debaterstud18Tied
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 9 years ago
bigbass3000
bigbass3000debaterstud18Tied
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