The Instigator
The_Devils_Advocate
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

the 700B$ bailout is a good/bad idea.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,708 times Debate No: 5530
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

The_Devils_Advocate

Pro

I am not arguing for or against it at this point, but am leaving it up to my opponent to decide. This means that I will not be arguing this first round, so my opponent doesn't have to as well. But if he/she would like to speak first, then that would be fine with me.
wjmelements

Con

I will support the 700 Billion Dollar Bail Out, and my opponent will attack it.

Because my opponent has not left a real argument yet, I will only clarify the debate and then my opponent will leave his platform.

I do not support the prospect of 8000 characters and I encourage my opponent to limit his characters to 2500 or less.

http://www.cnbc.com...
The 700 billon dollar bailout spent 700 billion dollars (really?) to save the current credit system.
Though usually the government has no place in the markets, our economy was too close to stagnating to risk stalling or not responding to the crisis. There was a risk of creditors and brokers severely limiting their new loans. This would almost end the creation of new small businesses and make house buying nearly impossible.

That is background on the subject of this debate.

It is now my opponent's turn to debate.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Devils_Advocate

Pro

The_Devils_Advocate forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Con

I will not really argue yet because my opponent has not.

The 700 billion dollar bailout is defined above.

A deppression is a state of economic instability and generally low and relatively low economic activity.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Devils_Advocate

Pro

To my esteemed opponent. I would first like to apologize for missing the last round. My debate season is starting up, and as captain I have been hurriedly running around organizing and other duties that I would prefer I didn't have. I do not intend to miss another, but we will see. Now for the argumentation.

The reasons the 700 billion dollar bailout is a bad idea are as follows.
1: It will not save the economy
2: Consumer confidence can't rebound
3: It will set a dangerous precedent

I will first begin by explaining what is currently happening regarding the bailout. Democrats and republicans alike have come to an agreement regarding what needs to be done for the economy. They have agreed that something needs to be done, but couldn't agree on what needed to be done. They reached an agreement that said they would bail out these companies over different stages depending on what needed to be done. The house voted...and it didn't pass. This means that these companies are not going to recieve the need they need.

Now for my first point. This bailout will not save the economy. The way capitalism works is like this. Consumers have jobs and earn money. They spend that money in the free market. The money spent goes to paying workers salaries, and making the company richer. When the company gets richer, they expand. When the company expands, they need more people working. More people are hired, so more people are earning money, and more people are spending money. Our economy is reliant upon spending money. The bailout will call for every taxpayer to pay 7,000$ of taxes. This is 7000$ that the taxpayer can't spend. This means that while these companies who made a bad decision are still in business, they don't have anyone to do business with. So when people don't spend money, companies don't get richer, they don't expand, they decrease, people get fired, which means more people don't have money to spend. This is exactly what will happen with the bailout. The House of Representatives realized this, and voted against it. So the economy cannot be saved by this.

My second argument is similar. Consumer confidence is necessary to a stable economy. If I believe that our economy is good, then I will spend money. If I don't, then I save money for harder times. Consumer confidence is LOW!!!!! Extremely Low!!!!! The bailout will do nothing but hurt that. As a taxpayer, if the government takes an extra 7000$ from me, then I start to save money. If I get less money, then I save more money. It's funny how that works, but it is the mindset we have as Americans. So consumer confidence will be even lower than it already is after the bailout. This too will hurt the economy.

My third and final argument is that it will set a dangerous precedent. We as Americans have prided ourselves on our freedoms. We have fought for them in the Revolutionary War, we fought against counter-ideals in the World Wars and the Cold War, and we are fighting for other's rights in Iraq...supposedly. The government that our fathers set up was that of a limited government. One that had no role in private or public business. This means that as soon as the government steps into and claims a territory that are not theirs, they will continue to do this. This has happened when the President claims sending troops isn't a declaration of war, rather a policing. This happened, and then continued to happen. The same will apply here. As soon as the government claims a power that isn't theirs, they will continue to keep that power. This isn't a free market any longer. This is a government regulated market. Right now, the government has banned certain types of selling by banks. THEY CANNOT DO THIS!!! The government doesn't have that power. As soon as they take this power, then it turns into an Animal Farm type government. They continue to erode people's rights, and won't stop until they have all of them. It's the slippery slope argument in a nutshell.

Let me give some analysis now. Our economy is failing. In all likelihood, it's going to fail. The bailout isn't going to help it, and if we do nothing, it's not going to help it either. But by giving the bailout, it's going to increase the rate at which it happens. No matter the problems with an economic collapse, nothing is going to be worse than the bailout. If our economy collapses, which I truly think it's going to, then we will see something very similar to the Great Depression. During the Great Depression, the government's power increased exponentially. This will happen again, only on a bigger scale. Our government is going to turn into Big Brother...sorry about all the Orwell quotes, but they fit quite well. The bailout isn't a good idea, it will start the government take over of rights.

Thank you for the debate, and sorry about missing my first round. It won't happen again.
wjmelements

Con

As pro, my opponent is trying to prove that the bailout is a bad idea.

I will start by negating his contentions.

"It will set a dangerous precedent"

The precedent was set back in 1970 when the government bailed out a few failing rail road companies. http://www.propublica.org...
Sometimes, when a very important part of the market fails, it effects the whole market, and the government sees it important to see it saved, which leads to the negation of the next point.
I do not support the slow growth of government power and regulation. This is not regualtion. And that is another debate.
"Consumer confidence can be rebound."

Funny for my opponent to use the Great Deppression as an example. The profits of companies were facaded and corrupt and it resulted in a massive stock bust which essentially ruined the economy. there was no government save until long afterwards. I disagree with the way the Deppression was handled with for the following decade but that's another debate.
After that long deppression, consumer confidence must have been rebound. the stock market is not only up and running, but it is booming. Obviously, consumer confidence had been re-earned.

And for clarification, my opponent stated that, "The bailout will call for every taxpayer to pay 7,000$ of taxes."
That would be true if there were a hundred million taxpayers in the United States. For the purpose of simplicicty, we will assume that there are actually two hundred million taxpayers (out of three hundred million citizens), which is generously low. Then, the 700 billion dollars divides into about $3,500 for one year, which is about $300 a month (still a generously high estimate).

My opponent also says that an inteligent population will then save their money rather than spend it. How does he think that will happen? The large majority of banks will close due to lack of income from the problem that is to be fixed by this program. A smart population will not save money that they fear will grow worthless.

To the first point: "It will not save the economy"
The alternative is to let the banking industry to collapse.

My opponent has a limited understanding of capitalism. I appreciate his basic explanation though.
Even before the company is made, it starts with a person who has an idea. Usually, that person is not extremely wealthy, and needs a loan to start this business. It is the bank, a part of the private sector, that usually gives this loan. Then, the business can start, buy or rent land, build, hire, and begin it's purpose.

Should the country's banking system collapse, then when the rest of the economy collapses as a result, then there wil be nothing to put the economy back up.

The banking industry is a very basic and important industry and our system of capitalism is very reliant on it.

The bailout will temporarily save that industry, and then the industry will adapt on its own to avoid a similar catastrophe, which will be a long term solution.

We don't have to head into another Great Deppression and this is the way to ensure it is a rather short one.

I accept your apology about missing the first round of the debate. i do hope you will not miss another now that we are really debating.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Devils_Advocate

Pro

The_Devils_Advocate forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Con

You should vote con whether conservative, liberal, or undecided.

Big spending is bad, but the banking system must be saved in order for the economy to be able to rebuild during our next potential great deppression, of which capitalism shall bring us out. Capitalism works faster when banks take part in the economy. When they cannot, the system slows and fails. The banks have lost money due to bad loans, but will learn from their mistakes.

I do not want a comment war between me and pro afterwards.

Thank you for reading this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I was certainly defending a position that I myself disagreed here.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
But Atheism only ruins the debate. It would again become anothe debate over God's legitimacy. And atheists would swarm in to vote. I wanted a debate over the death penalty in the Old Testament, not a debate over God's legitimacy. An atheist would be free to debate me on this, but I would prefer that he not use that atheist card, thus changing the debate.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
The atheism card: http://g.virbcdn.com...
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Atheism is not a card.
I would elaborate but it would be against the ToS.
Posted by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net...' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com...' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='undefined' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='275' width='305' flashvars='playerId=videolandingpage&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=News&referralObject=3146454&referralParentPlaylistId=2ce5d37a6dc78e66c7610a5aa1d9d56239ef5595&referralPlaylistId=ef08d24fac5bb90c6b8b114674df71418d6fc1a8' />
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
bfitz, I would eagerly debate religion with you as long as you dont' pull the atheist card. A 4000 limit would be fine.
Posted by bfitz1307 8 years ago
bfitz1307
wjmelements- I noticed you were having a debate on "God allowed the death penalty in the Old Testament." I saw the person you were debating wasn't very good, and was new to the site. I think this is a really interesting topic, and would love to debate you on it. I remember last time we debated you only allowed 1,000 characters, think maybe we could go atleast 4,000 for this one? Let me know what you think...
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I am a conservative, and I took a point of view I'd usually disagree with. I am very interested in how this will turn out.

As of the limit, having a very low character limit is always a fun thing to do. It is a challenge.
However, I plan to stop doing it pretty soons o I can have full debates.

My 2500 character limit is a request, not an order. Feel free to use 8000, but my 2500 limit is waht i would currently prefer.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
You'd be right in this case Lefty, but you leave out an important factor - consumer fear.

Yes the market will correct itself, however the questionis how long will it take for the market to correct itself? And furthermore, will its growth after the correction be as good as before this mess?

Fundamentally I disagree with the bailout. The best thing about our economy is that we allow businesses to fail, this encourages better ones to replace them. Raw efficiency is what makes a good economy.

However, if you consider that 3/4 of economic activity is consumer spending then the situation becomes much different. Imagine if your average joe takes his money out of the financial system do to fear?
You would get mass chaos to the effect that we have seen the past couple weeks. Only there would be no recovery.

Therefore I agree with the bailout. The perception that the government has the situation under control and is planning to spend large amounts of money on it, will quell much consumer fear and panic.

The question of whether the bailout will be effective in solving the whole of the financial crisis has two answers. In short yes, but in the long run, no. The derivatives market needs to be fixed before we realize the growth we have seen in past years. But such a fix would require 500 trillion dollars and a politician with enough financial wisdom to understand, solve, and push through congress the necessary oversite and regulations.

Neither of which we have nor will have no matter who gets elected, and this includes Bob Barr and Ron Paul.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
The_Devils_AdvocatewjmelementsTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
The_Devils_AdvocatewjmelementsTied
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 knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
The_Devils_AdvocatewjmelementsTied
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 Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
The_Devils_AdvocatewjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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