The Instigator
bluejustice
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
burnbird14
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Resolved: Federal Government Bailouts of Major Corporations Are Just

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,561 times Debate No: 7744
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

bluejustice

Con

Like most people opposing recent government bailouts, Thomas Jefferson is turning over in his grave right now. It was Jefferson who said, "The government which governs best governs least." Because I agree that small government means big prosperity, I must negate today's resolution which states: Federal Government Bailouts of Major Corporations Are Just.

The most paramount Value in today's round is that of: American Prosperity, defined as American's living in, or working to achieve a successful, flourishing, or thriving condition

The Criterion which I will use to uphold my value is that of: Justice, defined as the administering of deserved punishment or reward. [www.dictionary.com]

Justice is essential to American Prosperity because without the corporations receiving the punishment that they deserve, there is no way for Americans to prosper because the government will put our country into so much debt that there is no room for American's to prosper

Definitions are available upon request: [on definitions page]

OBSERVATION 1: the term bailout is a misnomer. Since congress is giving money to private corporations in exchange for stake in the company, meticulous oversight into its business, and regulatory control, the proper term is "not bailout" but "buy into".

1: BAILING OUT BANKRUPT COMPANIES THAT HAVE ACTED RECKLESSLY WILL ONLY CONTINUE SIMILAR BEHAVIOR IN THE FUTURE.

(A) Government funding of private enterprise is always bad for the consumers.
New York Times columnist Gretchen Morgenson asked "What are the consequences of a world in which regulators rescue even the financial institutions whose recklessness and greed helped create the titanic mess we are in?"

(B) Bailouts set a dangerous precedent which will lead to the destruction of American Prosperity
Hedge fund manager Bill Fleckenstein wrote over the past several decades, "Bailouts became bigger and bigger—as the feds tried to solve the problems created by too much easy money with more easy money."
I have one simple question: Where does it end? (Pause) The government buys control of AIG, GM, Bear Sterns, Chase Bank, etc…etc…Where does it end?

2: There were other options that would have better allowed for the prosperity of America.

(A) Chapter 11 bankruptcy was an alternate lifeline.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a form of bankruptcy reorganization available to individuals, corporations and partnerships. It has no limits on the amount of debt.
It is the usual choice for large businesses seeking to restructure their debt.
The debtor usually remains in possession of its assets, and operates the business under the supervision of the court and for the benefit of creditors. The debtor in possession is a fiduciary (a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another.) for the creditors. If the debtor's management is ineffective or less than honest, a trustee (The person who manages assets owned by a trust under the terms of the trust document. A trustee's purpose is to safeguard the trust and distribute trust income or principal as directed in the trust document.) may be appointed.

The simple fact is that the government didn't completely consider all of it's options when selecting bailouts as a method of "problem solving." Chapter 11 would have allowed for companies to have their debt reconstructed, which would have allowed for better money management in the future.

3: BAILOUTS ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT.

(A) Government buying into private business violates the constitutional principle of "limited government"

Thomas Jefferson said, "The government is best which governs least." The founding fathers of this country believed deeply that government was a necessary evil that should only perform certain limited functions such as maintaining a standing army and build interstate highways. They also believed very strongly that government should not perform functions for which it was not suited, namely—running a business. Because those in government power are inherently prone to corruption, inefficiency, and tyranny, the constitution writers put strict limitations on government, so call checks and balances. But, the bailouts are nothing more than foul expansion of government power way beyond what the founders envisioned.

Lastly, just think of the government owned economy of the old Soviet Union and you will get a picture of where this is all heading. Do we really want to emulate and try to duplicate the economies of North Korea, and Cuba? Mohamed El-Erian, of the world's largest bond investor, PIMCO, says bailouts" critically undermine the sanctity of contracts and, at the very minimum, leads to a persistent increase in the risk premiums that lenders impose on all borrowers. In addition, there may be unintended consequences that erode the integrity of the market system."
burnbird14

Pro

"In every civilized society, property rights must be carefully safeguarded; ordinarily and in the great majority of cases, human life and property rights are fundamentally and, in the long run, identical; but when it clearly appears that there is real conflict between them, human life must have the upper hand."
-- President Theodore Roosevelt
Because I agree with Mr. Roosevelt, former president of the United States, I must affirm today's resolution:
Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just.
Definitions are available upon request.
My value for today's round will be that of Human Life. Human life has multiple meanings, from actual life, a beating heart and steady breath and overall health, to the livelihood of an individual and a society. Human life is topical to the resolution because with the just distribution of bailouts, life and livelihood are preserved. As previously stated, when human life and property rights are in conflict, human life must prevail, because obviously if we don't have human life, we are all lifeless and dead. Thus, over all other values and criteria, human life must be protected and preserved.
To support my value, I offer the value-criterion of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Tevkik Nas, author of Theory and Application, stated that a cost benefit analysis is completed to determine how well, or how poorly, a planned action will turn out. Cost benefit analyses can be used for almost anything, though they are most commonly used on financial grounds. Since the analysis relies on the addition of the positive factors and then the subtraction of the negative factors in order to determine a net result, this process is often called running the numbers. This is topical to my value and the resolution because when looking at federal government bailouts in a cost benefit analysis, the benefits greatly outnumber the cost: in this example, preservation of human life greatly outnumbers any amount of money.
Observation I: Justice is not automatically the superior value. In the possibility that my opponent attempts to convince you, judge, that justice is the only value to be judged, I would present to you the fact that just because the word "just" is used in the resolution does not instantly give the value of justice precedence over all other values.
Observation II: The resolution calls for a debate affirming or negating the fact that federal government bailouts are just, and with this, one must realize that the resolution is first not specific to the United States and second does not call for proof or negation of effectiveness of bailouts. Therefore, this debate must look to the economic, sociological, societal, and all-around global effects of bailouts, as well as the just aspect of these bailouts or showing that they are legal, for it to be successful and educational. Any negative case that merely focuses on the current stimulus package and bailout plan of the Obama administration should be heard, but in the end disregarded due to the fact that cases such as these limit the educational value of this round.
Contention I: Bailouts Ensure Order
Subpoint A: Bailouts Protect Jobs
In order to maintain the economic "status quo," we must continue to ensure that every citizen is employed and working, thus keeping the flow of money within the country at a top-notch level. Keeping this in mind, you must affirm that bailouts are just, first because they are in fact legal, as the affirmative definition shows, and second because bailing out these major corporations keeps people working. Karl Marx, within his conflict theory, claimed that if we as a society do not continue to keep jobs open for individuals, then the society has created two huge problems within the status quo. The first of these is that, obviously, people are out of work, and therefore cannot contribute to the status quo, including paying taxes, which is an obvious problem. The second is that when people are jobless, they join a group collectively known as the surplus population, which has been proven to contain the majority of criminals, drug dealers, and deviants, and for the reason that the institution has failed them.
Subpoint B: Economic Bailouts Have Worked Before
Economic bailouts by the federal government have not only been successful in our own past, but in the recent histories of other countries, as well. We can begin by going back and looking at our own history, only around twenty years after the foundation of our nation, when William Duer caused a market panic by trying to depress the share price of the Bank of New York. Alexander Hamilton had to step in and fix the entire problem by buying government bonds and telling banks to accept them as loan collateral. Then, in the 1970's, in Great Britain, Rolls Royse was bailed out, which led to success. Another example can be found much more recently, when the airline corporations had to be given bailout aid by the American government following the nine-eleven attacks.
With all of these successes visible in the history of bailouts, it can easily be cross applied that bailouts can ensure order, and are thus just.
Contention II: Bailout Benefits Outweigh Initial Taxpayer Costs, Securing Human Life
The first and foremost argument against major corporations receiving federal aid is that taxpayers should not have to pay for the faults of these corporations. On the contrary, the initial costs by Mr. and Mrs. Everyday Taxpayer do not outweigh the preservation of human life, needed and achieved through these bailouts. We can go back and look at Chrysler in Flint, MI in the nineties. This car company was falling behind and losing money. Even though ten years before, Chrysler had received government aid and paid it back one hundred and fifty percent, they were denied further aid in 1996, and because of this, plants were closed across Flint and thousands of men and women lost jobs. In fact, the governor of Michigan stated before last year's MBA playoffs that they had to clean up Flint before the events were held because they had never truly recovered from the devastating job losses in the nineties. If this was just one company, one city, think about the devastation that would be caused if countless banks, insurance and loan, and car companies, failed, and millions upon millions of jobs are lost!
Contention III: True Capitalism Harms Human Life in the Long Term
CIV or covert institutional violence is a term created by sociologist Alexander Liazos, who made the claim that within a true capitalistic society, the "little man" or the economically inferior individual is continually being injured. To clarify his point, he begins by defining CIV as when people's everyday lives are harmed by an institution, one of his examples being from the seventies. Lee Iacoco (EYE AH COH COH), CEO of Ford Motors, found himself in the midst of a devastating oil crisis. He decided that in order to compete with foreign outsourcers Honda and Mitsubishi, he would create a car that would cost only $2000 from start to finish. He called this car the Ford Pinto. In the midst of building the car, though, it was noted that the fuel tank was far too close to the rear bumper, and in nine out of ten crash tests the Pinto exploded. Ford went back and discovered that with an $11 bumper attached to the rear of the vehicle, the car would be safe; unfortunately, they were already at the $2000 limit. When the numbers were compared, it was deduced that it would cost $137 million to add the bumper, but only $50 million to pay out in deaths, injuries, insurance, and lawsuits if the car were introduced into the market. So, obviously, in true capitalist form, Iacoco put the car on the market and killed thousands of people yearly. Therefore, when looking at capitalism from its CIV effects, true capitalism is actually harmful to the individual unless stringent regulation is put on the institutions within it.
I will give my opponent a chance to attack.
Debate Round No. 1
bluejustice

Con

bluejustice forfeited this round.
burnbird14

Pro

Well, guys, I guess since my opponent has forfeit the round, I can just go over her case, and, since she can't rebut, I should win...I think. I'll still try to give good arguments though.
Anywho, her value is that of american prosperity. Now, as I've shown through my case, the surplus population is a group you simply don't want to be involved in, and when bailouts don't occur, the jobless join this group, and America becomes less prosperous because of it. But if you don't want to buy that, which are you honestly going to protect: human lives or the prosperity of a country?
Next is her criterion of Justice, which is not a good weighing mechanism since she does not show us what brand of justice she is supporting. For example, it used to be just in the US to deal out paddling if a child misbehaved, but nowadays we call that child abuse. The principle of justice can change depending on who's dealing it out.
My opponent provides us with an observation that bailout is a misnomer, but since what the government is doing is called a bailout, and doing this for none of the reasons my opponent presents, this observation falls.
Her contention 1 discusses how bailing out a bankrupt company that has acted recklessly will only continue similar behavior in the future. Unfortunately, guys, my opponent is not a psychic, nor is she omnipotent or omnipresent. She can't prove to you that this statement is true, so already we must automatically assume it is false. However, if you won't buy into that, my opponent is making a blanket statement that she can't back up with any evidence whatsoever, so why should I refute it when she can't support it? Giving these bailouts protects human life, which as we all know must be protected at all costs, so it is just.
On to her C2, that states that there were other options that would have been better allowed for the prosperity of America. Unforutnately, her singular "option" has no merit in today's round, because the resolution specifies whether or not bailouts are just, and gives no option of other alternatives.
FInally, on her C3, she states that bailouts are an unconstitutional expansion of government. I would like to remind all of you tuning in to this debate that Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase. I know, duh, but nowhere in the constitution did it give him the right to do so. No, that's a wonderful thing called implied power, and our government has that power because we aren't a completely capitalistic economy!

Voters:
1) Human Life outweighs my opponent's value and criterion.
2) Resolution does not give room for alternatives to bailouts
3) Government has implied power
4) Impossible to look to the future for outcome of bailouts

For all these reasons, I ask you to vote Pro. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 2
bluejustice

Con

bluejustice forfeited this round.
burnbird14

Pro

All of my previous arguments stand. I think we've established that my opponent will not be posting on this debate, so yeah... VOTE PRO! :)
Debate Round No. 3
bluejustice

Con

bluejustice forfeited this round.
burnbird14

Pro

Vote PRO! :)
Debate Round No. 4
bluejustice

Con

bluejustice forfeited this round.
burnbird14

Pro

Well, as you can see, voter, the affirmative has posted on every argument, but my opponent? Zip, zero, zilch. Vote pro!!!
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Too bad Con defaulted. I think there had to be a bailout of sorts, but it would have been better accomplished under the bankruptcy laws, with government putting in capital as a priority creditor. I don't think Pro's case got to the heart of the issue, while Con was headng there. "Humanity" is so geenral, it could be used as a alue for either of any debate to support whatever one thinks is best. Defaulting is not a winning strategy, however.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Defaulted PRO.
Posted by burnbird14 7 years ago
burnbird14
*sighs* I guess there's not going to be any debate, unless bluejustice can show up miraculously within two hours and post an arg... :( Darn, I wanted to get practice in for region!
Posted by burnbird14 7 years ago
burnbird14
bluejustice,
I look forward to this round! :)
First off, just wanted to say that because my case is so expansive, I didn't have enough room to address your case, so if we could do this like a practical LD round, and treat these next two rounds like rebuttals, that would be great, thanks! :)

Sincerely,
Taylor (aka burnbird14)
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Posted by bluejustice 7 years ago
bluejustice
Alright. As far as the unemployment issue goes: look at the millions of jobs that have that have been lost by providing the bailout money. The government is interfering with these corporations, look at Pres. Obama asking the CEO of GM to step down. The government is putting itself into a role that the founding fathers knew that the government shouldn't be in: RUNNING A Corporation! The simple fact is that the bailouts are not just because there were better, more effective alternatives to the economic crisis such as Ch. 11 bankruptcy, where not only is the government limited in how far they go into the corporation, but it also educates the people of the corporation in how to manage the money of that corporation. It provides & allows for education, justice,and American prosperity.
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
Just clarifing
Posted by bluejustice 7 years ago
bluejustice
challenge the debate and argue your points and we'll see who has the better case plz
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
So.. You feel that Congress giving bailout money to companies so that tremendous amounts of jobs arent lost preventing the already soaring poverty line from getting worse is their way of controlling us?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
bluejusticeburnbird14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by burnbird14 7 years ago
burnbird14
bluejusticeburnbird14Tied
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:25 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
bluejusticeburnbird14Tied
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