The Instigator
bigbass3000
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Otis
Pro (for)
Winning
18 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
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: 3/21/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,010 times Debate No: 3327
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (10)

 

bigbass3000

Con

Learning experience for Nat quals
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 Vs. Tax reductions
Back in 2001, we had the same type of idea proposed by Bush, to give rebates to the economy to stimulate the economy, but what you must understand is this idea did not work until tax reductions across the board. According to Brian M. Riedl, "Tax cuts vs. tax rebates," Washington Times, January 16, 2008. "
• Critics contend that rebates "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production.
• But every dollar that government rebates "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy (and even money borrowed from foreigners reduces net exports).
• No new spending power is created; it is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.
Take the 2001 tax rebates, for example:
• Washington borrowed billions from the capital markets, and then mailed it to families in the form of $600 checks.
• Predictably, consumer spending temporarily rose, and capital/investment spending temporarily fell by a corresponding amount.
• This simple transfer of existing wealth did not encourage productive behavior; 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 -- which the economy finally and immediately recovered:
• In the previous 18 months, businesses investment had plummeted, the stock market had dropped 18 percent, and the economy had lost 616,000 jobs.
• In the 18 months after the 2003 tax rate reductions, business investment surged, the stock market leaped 32 percent, and the economy created 5.3 million new jobs; overall economic growth doubled. ", What this means is that even though the rebates will go in, because the Government has to take money to give money, it does not do anything. You have to have tax reductions plus tax rebates, to get anything done. It won't mitigate the problem; because we did the same thing last time and nothing happened until we added tax reductions to the money we were giving.

So, basically it won't do anything, but add to our debt, which will cause inflation, and yes, won't stop the slowdowns.

Please somebody debate this who want to debate it.
Otis

Pro

"The entire world economy rests on the consumer; if he ever stops spending money he doesn't have on things he doesn't need -- we're done for." This quote by Bill Bonner though primitive is true. We rely on the consumers of this country to keep our countries economy strong. This is why my partner and I affirm the resolution that the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year. First we will define a few key points then we will go on to affirm the resolution.
First the definition of mitigate according to Black laws dictionary is to make less severe or to reduce. This proves that the affirmative only has to show that the 2008 economic stimulus plan will lessen the slowing down economy sometime within the next year.
Our first argument is that it is historically proven direct economic stimulus will jumpstart the economy within a year. According to Rachael Beck from the associated press, During the 2001 recession, one-time rebates were paid starting in the third quarter, and consumer spending rose at a 7 percent rate in the fourth quarter, the economy grew at 1.6 percent annual rate in that quarter and 1.4 percent in the following quarter. This goes to prove that a direct stimulus plan will and does give the economy a boost that can lead to a more productive economy. Now we are not saying this is a miracle worker and it will solve all of our economic problems, but what we have just proven is that in the short term it does mitigate economic slowdown.
Our second point is that the economic stimulus plan will boost the GDP and create jobs. According to Douglas Elmendorf of the Brookings institute, "A temporary stimulus plan of 100 billion dollars would boost the annualized the GDP growth by between .8 percent to 3 percent". Also said by Zhandi an economist in an article titled "Stimulus package will boost GDP" that the package agreed upon by house negotiators will be enough to boost the economy by 1.5 percentage points the second half of this year and .5 percent in the first half of 2009. that translates into 700,000 jobs more than what be crated in that time. Other economists are also forecasting a boost in the economy and jobs due to increased consumer spending which counts for two thirds of economic growth.
Our third argument is that the economic stimulus act of 2008 treats the causes of the recession not the symptoms. A recession is caused by several factors such as a raise in interest rates, consumer spending decreasing, unemployment, a fall in government funding, and a lack of business investment as stated by Richard pettinger and deduced from the Gross Domestic Product equation. (GDP=C + I + G + (X – M)) If we look at each of these causes of a recession or a slowing economy we can clearly see that the economic stimulus act of 2008 will treat the core causes of the problem. For example the unemployment rate has been increasing which means that there is less money given to the consumer to spend. Two factors that lead to a recession. However this stimulus act gives money directly to the consumer to increase consumer spending and over the next year it will create 700,000 additional jobs as we stated in our second argument. Also another key part is the investment. Without investment our economy slows, but there are provisions in the stimulus that will boost the investments of the small business's. such as the 50% depreciation and the 250,000 dollar write offs. This leaves one other factor. The interest rates. The stimulus act does not have anything to do with the interest rates but as we know the interest rates were recently lowered by the federal reserve spurring more investment in the private sector. This macro economic policy along with the micro economic stimulus plan effectively eliminates all the causes of a economic slowdown or recession.

The Cons one main argument is an anology between 2001 and 2008. However, this analogy breaks down because of the use of Post Hoc by the Con.
In 2001 the economy was devastated by the 9/11 attacks which is responsible for the economic stagnation the Con claims. Consequently without the 9/11 attack the stimulus package probably would have worked.

Now a few questions:
In general dont tax cuts increase economic activity?
please clarify the macro economic principles of your case.
Debate Round No. 1
bigbass3000

Con

"First the definition of mitigate according to Black laws dictionary is to make less severe or to reduce. This proves that the affirmative only has to show that the 2008 economic stimulus plan will lessen the slowing down economy sometime within the next year.", no you have to prove successful mitigation.The resolution is that the economic stimulus act will successfully mitigate the economic down turn in the next year. You do not win simply by showing that there was some mitigation. If the government spends enough money it's sure to have some effect. It has to be successful mitigation. That means that the stimulus act has to meet the expectations/goals of those that advocated and passed it. And it has to do that in the next year 2009.

"Our first argument is that it is historically proven direct economic stimulus will jumpstart the economy within a year. According to Rachael Beck from the associated press, During the 2001 recession, one-time rebates were paid starting in the third quarter, and consumer spending rose at a 7 percent rate in the fourth quarter, the economy grew at 1.6 percent annual rate in that quarter and 1.4 percent in the following quarter. This goes to prove that a direct stimulus plan will and does give the economy a boost that can lead to a more productive economy. Now we are not saying this is a miracle worker and it will solve all of our economic problems, but what we have just proven is that in the short term it does mitigate economic slowdown. ", This does nothing, because you are going off the facts of a one person and mitigation, t=you the affirmative must prove their was a successfull mitigation.
"Our second point is that the economic stimulus plan will boost the GDP and create jobs. According to Douglas Elmendorf of the Brookings institute, "A temporary stimulus plan of 100 billion dollars would boost the annualized the GDP growth by between .8 percent to 3 percent". Also said by Zhandi an economist in an article titled "Stimulus package will boost GDP" that the package agreed upon by house negotiators will be enough to boost the economy by 1.5 percentage points the second half of this year and .5 percent in the first half of 2009. that translates into 700,000 jobs more than what be crated in that time. Other economists are also forecasting a boost in the economy and jobs due to increased consumer spending which counts for two thirds of economic growth. ", My question to you is will the success of this act be from consumer spending. That is all I want to know before I rebut.

"Our third argument is that the economic stimulus act of 2008 treats the causes of the recession not the symptoms. A recession is caused by several factors such as a raise in interest rates, consumer spending decreasing, unemployment, a fall in government funding, and a lack of business investment as stated by Richard pettinger and deduced from the Gross Domestic Product equation. (GDP=C + I + G + (X – M)) If we look at each of these causes of a recession or a slowing economy we can clearly see that the economic stimulus act of 2008 will treat the core causes of the problem. For example the unemployment rate has been increasing which means that there is less money given to the consumer to spend. Two factors that lead to a recession. However this stimulus act gives money directly to the consumer to increase consumer spending and over the next year it will create 700,000 additional jobs as we stated in our second argument. Also another key part is the investment. Without investment our economy slows, but there are provisions in the stimulus that will boost the investments of the small business's. such as the 50% depreciation and the 250,000 dollar write offs. This leaves one other factor. The interest rates. The stimulus act does not have anything to do with the interest rates but as we know the interest rates were recently lowered by the federal reserve spurring more investment in the private sector. This macro economic policy along with the micro economic stimulus plan effectively eliminates all the causes of a economic slowdown or recession.", The factor in the recession, the root of the probelm is the Housing Market according to Eric Tymoigne, you have mentioned nothing about that thus it does not help the root of the probelm, so yes there will be mitigation in 2008, but in 2009 it will be rollercoaster ride.

"The Cons one main argument is an anology between 2001 and 2008. However, this analogy breaks down because of the use of Post Hoc by the Con.
In 2001 the economy was devastated by the 9/11 attacks which is responsible for the economic stagnation the Con claims. Consequently without the 9/11 attack the stimulus package probably would have worked.", Before 2001, in fact in 2000, the entire election focused on the economy, because a recession was going to happen. 9/11 was a factor, but whether or not 9/11 happened would not have changed the events that were about to happen.

Now a few questions:
In general dont tax cuts increase economic activity? yes
Otis

Pro

The Con claims that i as the affirmative have to prove a successful mitigation but however if we look at the resolution "That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year." we do not see any talk of a full and successful mitigation but we do see that the affirmative only has to prove that it is mitigated. i will concede that i as the Pro must prove that it mitigates the slowing economy significantly enough to convince those who are voting. also the resolution does it state anywhere that the Pro must show the intentions of the creators or to prove that it meets there standards or expectations.

Now my first argument is not there to prove that there was a successful mitigation but to just say that under the most extreme of conditions that a stimulus act still has a positive impact. the facts don't lie and they clearly state that there was a mitigation of economic slowdown.

"My question to you is will the success of this act be from consumer spending."
Now this answer is two fold. The success of the economic stimulus act will come from multiple facets of the actual act. The main factor is yes consumer spending but as said in my third point it is also investment.

My third point my opponent tried to refute by claiming the recession is caused by the housing market. as i said earlier in the point the causes for an economic slowdown are a raise in interest rates, consumer spending decreasing, unemployment, a fall in government funding, and a lack of business investment. however i will take your claim with some seriousness, but the economic stimulus act does have provisions to help the housing market. there was a change in the interest rates and sub prime loans that the banks are allowed to give out and it raised the amount available in moderate loans with fixed rates.

Con states that there was going to be a recession before 2001 and this may be true however if the stimulus act would have happened without the devastation that 9/11 brought on the economy it would have been far more effective. by simply stating that it would have happened only proves that the powers to be or the creators of such legislation think that this type of stimulus act will be effective.
The Con now claims that whether or not 9/11 would have happened it would have had the same effect but yet there is no way to predict this and should be discarded.
Debate Round No. 2
bigbass3000

Con

No you have to prove successful mitigation, meaning the expectatons of the act come true with prove from evidence, you have not proven this, because what are the expectation, you said a 100 billion dollar injection causes 700,000 jobs, but it is a 150 billion dollar act, so you are advocating lower than expectations of the bill. Get your facts right, why because if you do not look to this definition then the aff can just say hey If one person spends 1 dollar that is mitigation to the economic slowdowns. It's abusive.

"Now my first argument is not there to prove that there was a successful mitigation but to just say that under the most extreme of conditions that a stimulus act still has a positive impact. the facts don't lie and they clearly state that there was a mitigation of economic slowdown.", Yes a mitigation, but do you have prove that the act is doing what the advocates said it was going to do. YOu have given no evidence to what the advocates of the bill said it would do. You don't win, by just proving some mitigation, you have to prove a successful mitigation.

"My question to you is will the success of this act be from consumer spending."
Now this answer is two fold. The success of the economic stimulus act will come from multiple facets of the actual act. The main factor is yes consumer spending but as said in my third point it is also investment., yes but do you know that 110 billion dollars of a 150 billion dollar act is going to spending. So if it is half of 110 billion dollars, then that is just wasted money.

The housing market has had a downturn over a span since 1955 actually, the debt continued in the housing market and guess who get s hurt by the housing market banks and people that get faulty loans, like sub prime. So debt continues and when the banks aren't happy in a economy, nobody is happy.

Yes, but like you said, shoulda, coulda, woulda, no evidence to prove otherwise or to prove what would have happened without 9/11.
Vote NEg.
Otis

Pro

First off the con wants to cry abuse but as i said i do have to prove significant mitigation, because if it was the burden of the Pro to prove the complete and successfull mitigation then that is also abusive so it goes both ways. second the resolution does not say successfull mitigation or what the creators were planning so the aff does not have to prove either. also on the argument that i have to prove it will meet what the creators wanted, there is absolutely no way to get into the creators head and say, od they want complete mitigation, or hey they want any mitigation at all so this argument falls. also the neg syas that i have to prove the expectation have to come true with proof from evidence. i dont know about you but i cant get evidence from the future.

then my opponent goes on to agree with me by saying yes there is mitigation but yoou havent proven what the advocaates wanted. this is non topical because no where in the resolution does it say anything about what the advocates want or fufilling their fantasies. any argument the con makes about this should be disregarded.

the housing market was just recently devastated by the sub prime lenders and we are feeling the effects of it now and we are acting to fix it. like i said the act has provision to increase the amount able to be borrowed in moderate loans which have lower interest rates. what this means is people will be more willing to start buying houses again.

if you look at the debate you will notice that the Pro clearly wins for a couple reasons. the first of which is that the Con is arguing off topic and trying to stray the debate away from the facts. Dont let the negative do this.
the second reason why the negative loses is because the only way he can attack my points is by stating the same nonsense over and over, which tells me that he knows im right.

these facts still stand:
1)the 2001 act boosted the economy and that was only a fraction the size of this one.
2)the direct implimitation of money in this way will ultimately create jobs and raise the GDP.
3)it treats the causes and not the symptoms.

these are the facts do not let the Con stray you away from them
vote aff
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
ATTENTION ALL DEBATERS: The online debate tournament on facebook (offically named "online debate tournaments") is now asking everyone possible to join. The webmaster recently discovered our group and has decided to make the first tournament a $100 cash prize IF we have 100 or more people in it. Please consider joining. It's a double elimination tournament. After joining the group, remember to put your debate.org name in the discussion board named "Tournament 1" to officially sign up. The sign up deadline is March 31st at 7:00 Central Time. At that exact time, I will begin making the schedule and will post all the details ASAP after that. Thank You for your consideration and I hope to see you on facebook!

Luke Cumbee
Posted by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
I have been Aff on this topic a lot and have lost, so I am wanting some one to make a case on the aff for me to debate.
Posted by qwarkinator 8 years ago
qwarkinator
I would love to debate you, however, i fully agree with your points.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
This is a very important subject matter to you isn't it? I believe its your third attempt. If I had any knowledge/understanding of this topic I'd have been glad to debate it with you.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by aodanu16 8 years ago
aodanu16
bigbass3000OtisTied
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 Creator 8 years ago
Creator
bigbass3000OtisTied
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 BrokenDoors 8 years ago
BrokenDoors
bigbass3000OtisTied
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 A-ThiestSocialist 8 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
bigbass3000OtisTied
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 8 years ago
Spiral
bigbass3000OtisTied
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
bigbass3000OtisTied
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
bigbass3000OtisTied
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 8 years ago
rnsweetheart
bigbass3000OtisTied
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 bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
bigbass3000OtisTied
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 Otis 8 years ago
Otis
bigbass3000OtisTied
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