The Instigator
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
InfraRedEd
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The stimulus bill will succeed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 4/13/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,450 times Debate No: 7836
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

rougeagent21

Con

I stand in firm negation. As the burden of proof falls to my opponent, I will allow him/her to open. Good luck!
InfraRedEd

Pro

The Stimulus Bill is part of an ongoing plan to take money from the workng class and put it into the hands of the rich. It will succeed admirably.

Thirteen trillion dollars http://www.moneyandmarkets.com... have already been pumped into bailouts. $13,000,000,000,000.00. That's roughly two thousand dollars per everyone in the world. This is nothing but a manipulation of money itself. The stimulus plan will give money to the middle class, not the poor. This is your first clue. Money given to the poor will not go to buy Merril Lynch. It goes directly to consumer spending. If ten million homeless got that money that would be over a million bucks each. That's just to get an idea of the size of the layout. Rest assured that none of these bailout plans will ever ever let money go anywhere the rich can't tell you exactly where it is.

OK so the middle class get the money and there is some mechanism for transferring this money to the rich and you can take that to the bank. Along with the money.

And by the way the stimulus plan is around, say two-thirds of a tril. Two thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in America. The tax refunds are maybe a fifth of that. Well where did the rest go? Perhaps they gave it to the poor.
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Con

Alright, first off I will address what the stimulus bill actually is.
My opponent seems to address what the bill is doing, not what it is supposed to do. The original goals of the bill were to:
-Make more jobs
-Put money into the hands of the middle/lower class
-Increase consumer spending
-Spend money now in an effort to save in the long run

I am arguing that the stimulus bill will fail to achieve all of its goals. My opponent seems to agree with me to an extent that it is failing already, so negating should be easy. Here is why you should:

The size of the first stimulus bill of 2008 was $150 billion, with more than $100 billion in tax rebates mailed to American individuals and house holds. This rebate was based on the assumption that people would immediately spend this rebate and thereby boost the economy.

The bill was a failure because it merely shifted income from one sector of the economy to another. The government cannot create new purchasing power or dollars; it can only change the allocation of dollars. To create the rebates, then, government had to take money away from another part of the economy. While the tax rebate may have boosted some consumption in the second quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2008, only a small part of the rebate checks were spent. As mainstream economic the ory would predict, large portions of the rebates were likely saved or used to pay down debt.

As housing prices continue to fall, unemploy ment continues to rise, and financial markets con tinue to shed valueless assets, the failure of the first stimulus bill becomes more and more apparent. Rebates failed in the 1970s, 2001, and again in 2008. Unfortunately, Congress is attempting to repeat this same failed experiment of income shifts and temporary spending increases.

Over the summer, congressional leaders called for a second stimulus package to strengthen the economy. The Chairman of the Senate Appropria tions Committee, Senator Robert Byrd (D–WV), released details of a Senate version likely to be debated this month. This bill focuses largely on infrastructure and disaster recovery projects, but will do little to stimulate the economy in the near future.

The initial Byrd proposal was $25 billion, but already there are calls to double or triple that amount. Senator Byrd's initial proposal contained $10 billion for infrastructure, energy, and economic recovery, the bulk of which would be spent on addi tional highway funding; $10.1 billion for additional natural disaster relief, much of which is allocated for victims of Hurricane Katrina, which occurred over three years ago; and $4.04 billion is spread across a wide range of programs, including money for NASA and other programs that are usually part of the annual appropriations process instead of an eco nomic recovery bill.

The problem with Byrd's stimulus proposal is that it is a return to failed policies. History has shown that expanded government reduces produc´┐Żtivity and economic growth. Massive Keynesian spending hikes in the 1930s, 1960s, and 1970s all failed to increase economic growth rates. Yet in the 1980s and 1990s—when the federal government shrank by nearly 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—the U.S. economy enjoyed its greatest expansion ever.

Spending-stimulus advocates claim that govern ment can "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. But that assumes Congress has a vault of money sitting there waiting to be distributed. In reality, every dol lar that government "injects" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed from the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.

Spending-stimulus advocates typically respond that redistributing money from "savers" to "spend ers" will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store their savings in their mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (which finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to other customers to spend). Therefore, the money is spent regardless of whether it is initially consumed or saved.

This does not mean that government spending has no economic impact at all. Economic growth requires productivity growth, and policies that alter productivity rates will accordingly alter the amount of economic output. In other words, government spending cannot significantly affect demand since it merely redistributes existing purchasing power, but it can alter supply by altering the productivity rates of people and businesses.

And that effect is mostly negative. History has shown that most government spending reduces pro ductivity and economic growth. Most government spending reduces economic growth due to:

Taxes. Government spending is financed by taxes, and high tax rates reduce incentives to work, save, and invest;

Reduced incentives. Social spending often reduces incentives for productivity by subsidiz ing leisure and unemployment;

Displacement. Every dollar spent by politicians means one dollar less that is allocated based on market forces within the more productive pri vate sector; and

Inefficiencies. Government programs are less efficient than those in the private sector.

As you can see, the bill fails to do what it was designed to do. For this reason, you must negate the resolution. Thank you.

http://americanaffairs.suite101.com...
http://www.unionleader.com...'s+the+point%3F+The+stimulus+bill's+real+goal&articleId=3dd9deb7-b109-4694-8fec-3d7b25c08dea
InfraRedEd

Pro

Either the government is really trying to do what it says but just gets it exactly wrong every time, or it is really trying to screw us and gets it exactly right every time. Anyway let's take a look at your assertion

"In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (which finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to other customers to spend). Therefore, the money is spent regardless of whether it is initially consumed or saved."

When you give your dollar to the bank it uses it to buy Merrill Lynch, or pay down its debt. This is not consumer spending.
When the banks "quickly lend it to other customers to spend" it is in the form of high-risk high-profit home loans which will never be repaid but are kept on the books to make the bank look like it has billions of dollars when it is actually insolvent. Keep your eye on these bad debts. You will soon be buying them at face value.
http://us1.institutionalriskanalytics.com...
When you go to the bank for a home loan it simply creates the money out of thin air.
http://www.populistamerica.com...

The so-called Housing Crisis
The banks have been scamming our homebuilding for years, and as long as we keep buying houses and paying them off it works fine. For them of course. But lately they have been ending up with houses instead of the cash they prefer. They never had any intention of owning houses, and the inescapable economic fact we are missing is that there is absolutely nothing you can do with a house except let someone live in it. Discounting of course the Spitzer-Clinton plan to turn them all into houses of ill repute. But they know we will not just leave the situation alone, and they did not get rich by letting a sucker off the hook. If they can create a problem by using mass evictions that can be solved with a large donation to the Church of Big Bucks, and we are sophisticated enough to fall for it then we have only ourselves to blame.
Total bailouts so far:
http://www.moneyandmarkets.com...
There's that word, "unintended," again. I'm sure if they just keep trying their best they will get it right.
That's $13,000,000,000,000.00. Two thousand dollars per everyone in the world. You are now sitting at a poker table and someone else at the table has thirteen trillion dollars. This makes your money worthless. Discussions about worthless money are pointless.
http://www.prosebeforehos.com...
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Con

rougeagent21 forfeited this round.
InfraRedEd

Pro

Let's take a look at what a debate is. First the topic is normally chosen by an impartial party. We can now see why this is important. Implicit in phrasing the debate topic is that is a good one, since that also can be challenged. The Instigator states his position on the topic. The Contender then states a position which disagrees with that of the other guy. Note that step two cannot be completed until step one is completed. It is the responsibility of both parties to support their positions and attack that of the other guy.

The practice of placing value on winning debates by simply picking a really stupid topic and then demanding one's opponent support it with volumes of data and sitting back and waiting for one's opponent to make a mistake, as my opponent has done, is inferior to the values of good debates and an informed public which I propose. The criteria which would support those values are many but certainly would include responsibility in selection of a good debate topic. Consequently it is important to allow participants the freedom to attack the appropriateness of the topic along with everything else about it if they so choose.

Pick a functional object X that does Y. Explain how it works. No, that's wrong, I tell you. It doesn't do Z properly at all. The sales person told me it would do Z and it does not. What is there that requires me to accept your explanation? Nothing except that your explanation accounts for observed behavior. It provides a hypothetical model for testing it, predicting future behavior. If this model does in fact account for observed behavior we say that it works. It doesn't really matter much what went on before that that did not work. If a paradigm accounts for thirteen trillion dollars that is a lot of ways that it could have failed but didn't. They would tend to support the hypothesis by inductive logic.

Consequently an explanation which works is preferable to one that does not work.
Based on the criteria of soundness, workability, consistency, predictability, constancy and suitablity as a scientific hypothesis.

Looking through the stimulus package

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

it becomes pretty clear what is going on. This program was designed to be economically unproductive. Costing over two thousand dollars per man, woman and child in the country, it is remarkable how the money trail disappears immediately. That family of four who will be paying eight thousand dollars for $79 a month in food stamps must be celebrating already. And that is one program that would be economically productive if it amounted to anythng. Filling potholes for people who didn't ask for their potholes to be filled will not generate income due to gas savings. It will give someone a temporary economically unsustainable job who will be paid with, and then pay taxes on, their own money. These jobs do not create any wealth and simply drain labor from the labor market in competition with the private sector, and create more debt, making economic recovery that much more remote. And there are an enormous number of "jobs" that will be "created."

I am taking a position which disagrees with my opponent, namely

Resolved: That the stimulus package was designed to be economically unproductive.

My opponent apparently believes that it was designed to stimulate the economy so this is certainly a disagreement.

Now I am the one who can sit back and count the votes.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
I apologize for the forfeit, I have had a lot of work to do lately. Good job to PRO, and I wish you the best if luck in future debates.
Posted by Clockwork 8 years ago
Clockwork
Pro is ridiculous. 10T of his mentioned 13T was already gone before the bailouts began.
Posted by thefact 8 years ago
thefact
you loose because the stimulus bill is a success; it was paused and became law. You framed your debate ; and did not know what you posted ,your position is not if the stimulus bill will do anything but if it will pass and that means it was successful. If you want to debate if the stimulus bill will succeed in pouting money in the hands of people or not ; or do something else then frame your debate appropriate.
Posted by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
Well, this I know. I am only stating that it seems a bit illogical to argue from a purely speculative viewpoint. It would most certainly be an arbitrary and capricious debate.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
The instigator gets to write whatever rules he wants in R1, if you don't like them, don't take the debate :)
Posted by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
Different circumstances sir. It is like saying becuase Hoover's stimulus attempts with the Reconstruction Finance Corps. failed, FDR's were doomed as well. Don't be foolish.

BUT, you do raise my point well, both arguments could be correct.
Posted by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
yeah, I mean because the other stimulus bills in 01 and 08 succeeded so much, why don't we give it a go the 3rd time. :(:(:(
Posted by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
Right, and I AGREE with the resolution strongly. It would make a great argument over a beer or something, but I cannot bring myself to have a formal debate over this. Why? Because neither you or I could prove each other incorrect. I would argue that the government spending of WWII and the New Deal brought us out of the Great Depression, and will now too. I would be correct. Then you could argue that tax cuts blah blah blah would work or whatever it is that conservatives are preaching these days (anyone for tea???), and if you could cite evidence, you'd be right as well. In a sense, just as I. I prefer to debate the past, but the future man? Well, we should debate this in 3 years. If we're still alive and everything, challenge me.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
I personally disagree with the resolution strongly. The reasoning behind my taking the CON side is to learn other's opinions. I try to be open-minded, and this is a start. I want my opponent to fully develop their opinion, as opposed to hearing mine first.
Posted by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
I am not sure of how much good will be done by debating the future. You know?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 6 years ago
DylanAsdale
rougeagent21InfraRedEdTied
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: k
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
rougeagent21InfraRedEdTied
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 
Vote Placed by Riley09 8 years ago
Riley09
rougeagent21InfraRedEdTied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
rougeagent21InfraRedEdTied
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