The Instigator
bigbass3000
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
astrosfan
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points

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

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: 3/11/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,478 times Debate No: 3190
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (20)

 

bigbass3000

Pro

"To build a prosperous future, we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy. As we meet tonight, our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. America has added jobs for a record 52 straight months, but jobs are now growing at a slower pace. Wages are up, but so are prices for food and gas. Exports are rising, but the housing market has declined. At kitchen tables across our country, there is a concern about our economic future. In the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth. But in the short run, we can all see that that growth is slowing. So last week, my administration reached agreement with Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner on a robust growth package that includes tax relief for individuals and families and incentives for business investment. ", it is because I agree with this quote from George Bush, that I affirm the resolution

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. 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.

Con.1-Tax rebates work
Little A-What they are
"Individuals and families are eligible to receive up to $600 for individuals and $1,200 for couples. A minimum of $300 per person and $600 per couple would be available to those with at least $3,000 of earned income. This relief would be available to everyone with adjusted gross income less than $75,000 for singles and $150,000 for married couples filing jointly. It will be phased out for taxpayers above those income thresholds. Taxpayers may qualify by filing a tax return for 2007 and including a valid Social Security number on their tax return."
Little B-The G.D.P. increase
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), "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.
Little D-Elderly
"Recipients of Social Security and certain veterans' benefits are also eligible for rebates. Those who receive at least $3,000 from any combination of benefits from these programs will receive rebates. The IRS and Treasury Department will be working closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration, along with beneficiary organizations, to ensure that all eligible individuals are able to receive their payments.", What that means is that the elderly will receive money as well to stimulate the economy and according to William Novelli, Chief Executive Officer, AARP, "Tax rebates can be an effective stimulus measure, and [the Senate stimulus bill] provides tax rebates to millions of Americans, including over 20 million older Americans who primarily depend on Social Security for their retirement income. These older Americans spend 92% of their income -- a greater proportionate share of income than all other adults. This spending pattern strongly suggests that rebates for these individuals will be spent entirely and quickly, helping to provide an immediate boost to the economy.", so that will provide an immediate boost as well.
Con.2 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.

Con.3 creates jobs
According to Ron Scherer | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor from the January 22, 2008 edition," "It may be too late, but it could mitigate the severity of the downturn or even jump-start us out of a recession," says Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. "But I think that stimulus is helpful." Mr. Zandi, who is skeptical Congress will act quickly, estimates the proposed package could add $80 billion to real GDP in the second half of the year. That translates to about 1 percentage point of annualized growth. He also estimates that would support some 400,000 jobs. ", This means it can mitigate the job loss by providing jobs.

"Long-term unemployment places an enormous strain both on families and on the economy. Extending unemployment benefits would not only give aid to the families hardest hit by the economic downturn but also provide a critical stimulus to the economy. The long-term unemployed, their savings depleted, quickly spend virtually every dollar they receive, mostly on necessities found in their local economy. Extending unemployment benefits during an economic downturn is not only the right thing to do for the families struggling in this economy; it is also excellent economic policy."
–Heidi Shierholz, Economist, Economic Policy Institute (February 4, 2008)
astrosfan

Con

first for a few questions for my the pro side:
1. what is in the next year.
2. where dose the money for this come from
3. what prevents money being spent on thing made outside of the country.
4. where is this economic slowdown being mitigated
5. will this increase investment in forgin

now i will provide definitions for this debate

1.resolved- "TO DETERMINE OR DECIDE IN PURPOSE; TO MAKE READY IN MIND; TO FIX; TO SETTLE; AS, HE [OR SHE] WAS RESOLVED BY AN UNEXPECTED EVENT," WEBSTER'S REVISED UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY, 1996 [THIS EVIDENCE WAS GENDERPARAPHRASED]
[HTTP://DICTIONARY.REFERENCE.COM...]

my first attack is using the word resolved. the word resolved means that you as a person must support the resolution. but if i'm able to disprove the reason that you support the resolution i will have been able to negate the resolution. you claim the reason that you support the resolution is because of the Bush quote. the first problem is that it states "we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy" that there is a automatic doubt that it fill fail because it is up to the people to make this work. you as the pro has the burden of proof and must be able to give proof that the people will be able to spend money wisely. secondly to discredit your source, 2 words IT'S BUSH. if i remember right it was Bush who has caused gas price to raise because of the war. under Bush the unemployment rate has grown to 5%. http://en.wikipedia.org...
so by putting doubt in the pro's reason to debate that they would no longer be resolved in the resolution and would no longer be able to affirm the resolution.

against your sub point b,c,d my third question. even if you give people the money what says they spend it inside of our country? as of now we import billion of dollars in products from other counties so some of the money will leave the country causing the plan to be ineffective. from china alone we import over 300 billion $.http://www.uschina.org.... the reason this happens is that if the money leaves the country people in the US will no longer be able to spend it making it useless.

against your second con. we can see this is dependent on the plan working but cross apply the above arguments at would stop it from being successful. secondly what will prevent people from believing that this is the US becoming despreit and cause them to believe that we are on the edge and cause people to pull out of the US economy hurting it even more.

and against your final con. it will not create job because part of the rebates go to businesses that that improve their equipment which would mean less of a need to have people working because they have other things to do their jobs.

one major question that i ask is where is the money coming from? it could only come from 3 thins 1 tax increase, 2 the US printing more money, or 3 loans from other counties. but all the ways that this could be funded are flawed.
1. if the government would have to increase taxes in order to fund this it would have no effect because the money that was given to them would be taken back because of taxes. secondly taxes hurt economies because it cause a surplus when people don't have the money to buy things and this is compounded by the biasness incentives because now the produce more and now there is more died wight product not being used.
2. by the US printing more money they will just cause the decline in the US dollar and because of that event though they have more money the total worth of this money will still be the same because it's worth less.
3. taking from other governments will cause the our debt to grow that will cause to lose even more money and will not help the economy.
Debate Round No. 1
bigbass3000

Pro

1. what is in the next year.-2009
2. where dose the money for this come from- It is a tax rebate,
3. what prevents money being spent on thing made outside of the country.-Notings does, but that doesn't mean all of it will be spent outside the country.
4. where is this economic slowdown being mitigated -It is just making the slowdowns milder, slowing down the slowdowns
5. will this increase investment in forgin -Idk forgin

now i will provide definitions for this debate

All it is from is the national forensics league, the topic is right in front of your eyes.

Yes, but do you know, that American companies make products there and get the profits here. Besides, this has been done in the past and it worked in 2001-2003.
How can people pull out of a economy, that they live in, 300 million people are not going to do that. Besides, the reason, they are introuble is because they are not spending. Giving them money to spend, which worked in the past will work. Give me an example of this happening in real life, instead of what if's and I might consider it valid.

Wrong,Government gives money=people=companies=profits=more jobs=more money=more profits.

It is not from inflating money, or taxes or even foriegn investment, it is from taxes already paid by the taxpayers. It is your tax refund given earlier to send on the economy.
They would not inflate money, because that would be suicide, now onto your foreign arguement.
According to Eric Tymoigne assistant professor of Economics at Fresno State University."If the trade deficit is an issue, it is in relation to the previous point. The problem is not a financing constraint, that is, that one day the United States may not be able to borrow dollars from the rest of the
world to finance its imports. Indeed, the United States has a dollar-
denominated monetary system and so can print as many dollars as it needs to finance its expenditures. In addition, the rest of the world cannot save any dollars before the United States injects them into the world financial system via its current-account deficit. Thus the problem is elsewhere. It is that currently the private sector, more specifically households, is the only U.S. sector capable of satisfying the rest of the world's net desire to save. But U.S. households have reached a point where their income is insufficient to satisfy the desires of the rest of the world. Therefore, households must borrow dollars, not from the rest of the world that wants to obtain dollars, but from domestic banks that do not need foreign dollar savings to refinance themselves because they have access to the refinancing channel provided by the central bank.2", the probelm is elsewhere, Aff wins. You have good points, but you need to know this plan, learn about it.
astrosfan

Con

First of I would like to state that my opponent has failed to refute my argument on the word resolved. Because I have attacked the reason for my opponent is supporting the resolution and has not defended meaning he has no resolve to support the resolution and thus has failed to do the job of the affirmative. So to extend these arguments, first as I stated before if the success of this plan is dependent on the people there is no way that we know that they will do the right thing with their money. (I'll explain latter). Secondly because I have put doubt in the person stating the quote because it is Bush who as I stated before is the reason that the economy is bad. It was Bush who after 911 told people that in order to improve the economy they should go out and buy things but this is what caused this economic slowdown. Because in order to meet the higher demand for thing like homes they began to make more causing the worth of owned homes to dropped meaning that now the house they owned was worth less then their mortgage causing foreclosures which is way there is a economic slowdown. Meaning that the speaker of the quote is the reason for this slowdown so why should he be trusted, and this also show how the examples of the 2001-03 plan can not be a reason to support this resolution.
The fact is as I stated that giving people all responsibility for success will in the end be the down fall of the aff because there is no way to make sure they spend it on the right things, and in 2001 empirically it is shown that people will not go out and spend this money. http://www.fox28.com...
And while it may sound great, IUSB Economics Professor Lane David says, it may not be great for the economy.David says, "The problem is that both the empirical evidence and theory tells us that tax rebates don't work to stimulate the economy. And we only have to look back to the recession of 2001 when they did exactly this to see that they don't work. Consumers spent less than 20 percent of what they received from those tax rebates and it really didn't make a dent on the economy at all."
The other problem is that some of the money will be spent on thing that are made outside of the US meaning that not all the money will go back into the economy and will not help in any way to stimulate the economy. http://www.glennbeck.com...
" So we pop it into the mail and then what happens? And then you take it and you go out and you buy goods made in China. (Applause). This is fantastic. This is the best, this is the best stimulus package I've -- can I tell you something? It will definitely stimulate the economy. Not ours but China. It will be fantastic. I mean, imagine that. Look how insidious that is. Can you imagine if I were a Bill's Store and Bank and I said, "Whew, we're having problems with the economy. John, I tell you what we need to do. Just to help you out, I'm going to loan you $1,000, okay? You're going to have to pay 8% interest on that but I'm going to loan you -- because this will be for your own good. I'm going to loan you $1,000 at 8% interest and then you go ahead and spend that. Oh, by the way, I'll cash that check for you if you want. You can spend it right here in my store and buy stuff that I'm selling." The Chinese win in three ways. They continue to enslave us in debt; they got their interest rate. Congratulations. They're making money; and they're putting their own people to work making the crap that we buy. Who's the winner here? Oh, I'm so excited for that paycheck -- oh, I'm not going to get one. That's right. I'm too rich. I'm too rich. I've got -- I don't even need a tax decrease. Why would I need a tax decrease? I'm just running a small business that just got an insurance increase of 48%! Yeah, don't worry. Don't worry. I'm sure all those people that run small businesses, they don't need a tax decrease, either, uh-uh, no."
the fact is, is that if people don't one, spend their money fast and two, if they do spend it inside the US there is no way that this plan can have success.
China gives US money=government =people=china= net lose for the US
The reason for asking for where the money comes from is because money just doesn't come from nothing the government has to take it from some where. http://www.townhall.com...
"But skepticism is in order. Any money that the government lays out, after all, will not drop miraculously from the sky. Since the federal budget is already running a deficit, those funds will have to be obtained the old-fashioned way -- by borrowing. More money would be spent by those who get the help, but less would be spent by those who provide it. So the whole transaction may add up to not much more than zero."
as it states if we barrow from other countries we will just run up the deficit. This will cause a financial crisis http://www.foreignaffairs.org...
"In the late 1990s, the United States borrowed abroad to finance private investment. Today, however, the country does most of its foreign borrowing to finance the federal budget deficit, which is projected to be close to 3.5 percent of GDP in 2005. (In 2000, the United States had a surplus equal to 2.5 percent of GDP.) Recent economic growth has not reduced the budget deficit, but it has increased private demand for scarce savings; the net result has been even more borrowing from abroad. In 2004, foreigners bought an amazing $900 billion in U.S. long-term bonds; the United States exported a dollar of debt for every dollar of goods it sold abroad. Looking ahead, the U.S. debt position will only get worse. As external debt grows, interest payments on the debt will rise. The current account deficit will continue to grow on the back of higher and higher payments on U.S. foreign debt even if the trade deficit stabilizes. That is why sustained trade deficits will set off the kind of explosive debt dynamics that lead to financial crises."
This turns and proves that this plan will only further the US economic problems.
Another argument that my opponent failed to attack is that it will not create jobs. Business receive support will find ways to improve efficiency though methods of improving production which will cause less need for worker causing more unemployment.

so to conclude the only way that this will help the US is that while we go through the next great depresion at least we will all have 50 inch TV's to injoy it
Debate Round No. 2
bigbass3000

Pro

All the quote is, a reason, bush is not the reason the economy is bad, because it started to spiral out of control in the 1980's.
It won't fail, it miitagated the damages.
It will, but hello, some will be spenmt on the U.S.
You won't have a tax increase until 2010, even, then, it is your own money you paid already.
It has worked, so his ideas fall.
Deficit is not a bad thing to consider.
It this paln, fails, then the democrats have failed and the republicans, no it has wortked in the past and will continue to do so. Your evidence is flawed, mine still stands.
astrosfan

Con

Now from my opponent's last round we can see that he has extremely under covered all of my arguments and has just said I'm right you're wrong. Now to cover my opponent arguments.

My opponent says "all the quote is, a reason, bush is not the reason the economy is bad, because it started to spiral out of control in the 1980's. It won't fail, it mitigated the damages." First my opponent has failed to see the impotence of the attack on the Bush quote if I prove why the quote is wrong or why you should not trust the author my opponent has failed to support the reason that he supports the resolution then my opponent is no longer has meet the word resolved in the resolution and thus has failed to affirm the entire resolution. Now the reason that you as the voter should vote for the con side on this is because it the pro doesn't have to support the entire resolution it becomes imposable for the con side to win because the pro could just say they don't support that part of the resolution and could link out of any argument. So to extend what I said before, first the reason that this quote is unable to prove why it will be successful is that it is based on what the people do and there is no way to be sure that they will spend it in the right way. This argument is supported by the quote from glen beck that states that the majority of the money will be given to china and will not help the US, now my opponent only argument against this is "some will be spenmt on the U.S.". Now in this we can see 2 flaws. 1, I agree that "some" money will be spend on things that are made in the US, but the problem is that because the majority of thing that people buy is not made in the US thus there will not be a big effect on our economy. 2, we see that because my opponent failed to attack my argument that the money will not be spent fast enough, look to the peace of evidence from fox28 we see that (using the 2001-03 plan which has been one of my opponents biggest example to support what he is saying) not all the money will be spent. Combined with my first argument we can see that there is a 0% chance that there will be any positive effects on our economy. The second reason that the quote is flawed is that it from Bush whose past plan for economic stimulus is what has caused this economic slowdown. My opponent has not provide any arguments against so extend my argument that says that because Bush gave people money and told them to spend it he increased the supply of things which cause there to be surplus thus causing the value of houses to drop causing people's mortgage to cost more then the homes were worth cause foreclosures which is the cause of this current economic crisis.

Now cross apply all the above reasons to prove how there is no way that this plan has a single shred of solvency meaning that it can't mitigate the economic slowdown

Now my opponent states, "You won't have a tax increase until 2010, even, then, it is your own money you paid already." Now if this is not a contradiction I don't know what one is, because you say in the first part that the tax increase to pay for this plan will be in 2010 then he says that it money you have already given. Now the only way that this could happen is that the US government in 2010 was to create a time machine and send the money from 2010 to today. The point is, is that the US government will have to barrow some money from a foreign nation as supported by the town hall evidence. So because money will have to be barrowed to support the deficit it will be seen as economic weakness and cause a even worse economic down turn.
My opponents only other attack is "Your evidence is flawed, mine still stands." But the only way my opponent could prove that is by one extending his arguments which he has not and two he could provide some support for his arguments which he has not done either. So this argument should be the other way around because I have provided ample amount of support for my arguments while my opponent has provided almost none.

So finally to provide the voters in this debate. First my opponent has provided no offence or defense ageist my attack with word resolved. Second the fact that I have given why there is a 0% chance of this solving for the economic problems. And finally we see that it will have negative consequences on the US economy.
Debate Round No. 3
bigbass3000

Pro

His plan, did not cause the economic slowdowns, it was us, the people, and the housing market. You must always look to what I just said, because my opponent is focusing on arguements that are useless and do you make this debat go anywhere. HE fails to realize, that all of his bush bad rhetoric is just a cover for I don't know what caused it. What caused it was the housing market, from the 1980's till now. The plan, has incentives for fannie mae and freddie mac to help the housing market, which is causing the slowdowns. It has nothing to do with Bush, I know people want to blame him, but it is the mortgages and ebt accumulated from the housing market. My opponent, only focuses on his own arguements failing to realize, that my contentions stand,. he does not extend anything, expect it won't work. He is focusing it on off topical arguements on resolved and Bush, because I used a Bush quote, I'm bad. Vote for the affirmitive for the following reasons, don't get sucked into arguements that are not important.
astrosfan

Con

first to defend the resoloved argument. as i stated before there are reasons why this importent, but my opponent has failed to see this. so to extend my argument the reason this is importent is because it is part of the topic and it is the job to defend the entire resolution because of the already stated reasons that if you allow him to link out of curten arrguments it take ground from the con creating an unfair debate this is importent because a fiar debate is apior requirment for any competive or educational debate.

so extend all arguments why you you should not believe the quote and because my opponent has failed to defend agniest this argument so extend it across.

at this point my opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof even if you don't belive my attaks on bush he has missed all my attack on the plans ablitty to solve which is the root of the topic. so exstend my argument that some of the money will be spent outside of the US.

secondly he has failed to defend that because of the we will have to barrow money hurting the us economy and only causeing the problem to be worse turning his case meaning there is no why that this plan will work.

the reason my opponent gives to vote for him are random arguments aganist me but none of his argument have defend what is imporent as i state below

as to give you the voters
1.i have won the argument over the word resolved
2.my opponent has dropped what he even calls the most imporent argument over this plans solvancy
3.my opponent has also droped my argument that this will cause the economy to become worse
Debate Round No. 4
bigbass3000

Pro

my opponent does not understand the arguements.George bush is not important, resolved as a arguements is utterly untopical and a crappy way of debating this topic and thusshould be dropped fromthe round. Please look to my arguements, my opponent has not extended my attacks. Vote ADF
astrosfan

Con

there are 2 problems which my opponent's arguments.
1. he fail to see the fact that my arguments have a point all he says is that it is a bad argument to attack the word resolved. all he says is that you shouldn't listen to it and not even given any defense to what it really says and because of this failure you should vote on it because the fact that it is uncontested it is 100% true so this would out weight any chance that it could be a bad argument. secondly there is a point of this argument as i stated before that by not being resolved to the topic the con side loses ground, which cause the debate to be unfair, and an unfair debate destorys all point to debate. and even if you don't listen to this argument it is no reason to vote for the pro over it.
2. he has failed to defend what he calls the most important part and yet he fails to say any thing about it. so extend my argument on how money spent outside of the country will cause the plan to fail. and extend my argument to barrowing money will hurt the economy.

now of voters
1. you should still vote on the resolved argument because of the is nothing contesting it
2. because he fails to defend against my attack on it ability to be successful meaning there is nothing from the pro supporting the topic.
3. the fact that this is counter productive you should vote on this argument as will because it has been conceded thought the entire debate
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
@ astrosfan

Unfortunatly, objective, unbiased,"Tabula Rosa" voters are hard to come by.
Posted by astrosfan 8 years ago
astrosfan
it doesn't matter what you can prove it is what me and my opponent can prove. As the voter you should remove all of our pre-known knowledge and vote just on what is presented in the debate.
Posted by BuddhaCheeks 8 years ago
BuddhaCheeks
ok, the slowdown wasnt started by bush it was started by the housing market decline from 2004-2007. the main arg. by the con side was that the money might not be spent or that it would be spent elsewhere. the stimulus package is targeted mainly at people that are in need of money. the con didnt give any number that would not spend on the us eco. also the pro has empirical evidence bout economy jumping back. look at 2001.

The Federal Reserve has 2 ways in which they increase the money supply into the economy. one of them is lowering interest rates-which Bernanke and the Federal reserve board has done at least 9 consecutive times in row. The federal funds rate- which stands at 2.25%- is the interest the federal reserve charges to banks -like the hutchinson credit union- to baorrow money. then our local banks here- thanks to the fed. reserve lowering how much they have to pay- can pass that savings onto you and I. they will lower the interest you and i have to pay on our mortgages(home loans) and car loans THIS MEANS THE CONSUMERS WILL, UPON HAVING TO PAY LESS INTEREST ON TOP OF THE MONEY THEY LOANED, GO TAKE OUT LOANS TO BUY HOMES, CARS, BOATS AND OTHER GOODS. This will boost the economy because it increases demand, which increases jobs, which increases spending power. this will continue inflation happens than the fed will tighten money, rather loosening money- the fed is loosening money available for the economy.

The second part of the fed's campaign is tax breaks...or refunds..300 to 600 dollars this is a short term solution, perhaps, the economy will get a jumpstart. Job will increase when ppl spend these tax refund checks because their will be an increased demand for goods. companies will hire more ppl to meet demand of services and goods.

pro win.....
Posted by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
Supply side, not Keynesian economics, which is expected today.
Posted by sarsin 8 years ago
sarsin
"Supply-side economics asserts that inflation is caused by either an increase in the supply of money or a decrease in the demand for balances of money. Thus the inflation experienced during the Black Plague in medieval Europe is seen as being caused by a decrease in the demand for money, the money stock used was gold coin and it was relatively fixed, while inflation in the 1970s is regarded as initially caused by an increased supply of money that occurred following the U.S. exit from the Bretton Woods gold standard."

We have created a decreased demand for our currency by borrowing a buttload of money and lowering our credit rating. Ergo, the value of the dollar drops. It doesn't help that our current housing market has discouraged foreign investors, which further decreases the demand for the dollar. This drives up the cost of everything we import (i.e OIL) and the general cost of doing business, raising prices on consumer goods.

So borrowing money to throw it back into the economy isn't a good plan, because it will further lower the value of our currency. So I get $1200, but costs for everything goes up and my salary certainly doesn't. Unless that $1200 is going to offset that cost of living difference I just got screwed.
Posted by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
False, making more money does not cause inflation. Inflation is caused by rise in prices (oil). Why are you so dumb.
Posted by sarsin 8 years ago
sarsin
"Wrong,Government gives money=people=companies=profits=more jobs=more money=more profits."
That would work if we didn't import lots and lots of our products. See the government borrowing and spending money like Britney on a bender debases our currency in the world. So even though there's more money flying around in OUR economy, to the rest of the world it's worth less. So the cost of consumer goods up, meaning there is less money to spend on other things with means less profits.
Posted by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
Whoa, you won one point, that has nothing to do with this topic. No, you consented to all my points, deal with it, expect resolved.
Posted by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
One, the only way that money would end up in China, is if all the citizens we give the money to were from china.
Posted by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
Please, someone debate this, knowing how to debate it
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
bigbass3000astrosfanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arugments
Vote Placed by astrosfan 8 years ago
astrosfan
bigbass3000astrosfanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Creator 8 years ago
Creator
bigbass3000astrosfanTied
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 TGN18 8 years ago
TGN18
bigbass3000astrosfanTied
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 aodanu16 8 years ago
aodanu16
bigbass3000astrosfanTied
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 twinkiesunite 8 years ago
twinkiesunite
bigbass3000astrosfanTied
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 8 years ago
rnsweetswimn1
bigbass3000astrosfanTied
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 kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
bigbass3000astrosfanTied
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 kelstwa 8 years ago
kelstwa
bigbass3000astrosfanTied
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 natelex7791 8 years ago
natelex7791
bigbass3000astrosfanTied
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