April Public Forum Practice.

I stand affirmative on Resolved: That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year. Your observation is incorrect. In order to mitigate economic slowdowns, an economic model is merely required, within the next year, to show a positive outlook that is promising enough to reverse the economic losses since mid-2007. Additionally, in principle, there is no method to differentiate between economic progress caused by the Stimulus package and progress with natural economic mechanisms. So long as no other government measures are necessary to accomplish the aforementioned task, the affirmation wins. I accept all of your definitions except for inflation. Inflation shall be defined as a resulting judgment from an analytical analysis of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) indicating that the United States economy is overspending and prices are rising. Opponent 1: "The reason for economic slowdown is due to unemployment." Incorrect. Unemployment is normal right now and has decreased each of the last two months (Department of Labor Statistics). The economy has gained 536,000 jobs over the last fiscal year. Starting this March, however, the economy lost 80,000 jobs. This is rising unemployment. But unemployment is never the cause of economic loss, but an obvious sign that economic loss may be occurring. Unemployment is a consequence of economic change. "The 2008 Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 does not propose any benefits for the umemployed in America." The E.S.A. directly hands out tax rebates and business tax incentives, so you are correct. However, this argument is frivolous because unemployment is not the concern. The E.S.A. DOES successfully mitigate in such a necessary manner because the actual causes of the economic turndown are: 1) Housing bubble popped, leading to dropping house values, foreclosures, and extended damage to the banking industry 2) A very weak dollar (NOTE: The weak dollar makes the economy worse, but the economy can be restored without appreciating the dollar.) 3) Rising gas prices that drive up all other consumer goods by increasing the factors of production for the companies responsible for the transportation and production of consumer goods. Opponent 2: Spending will not increase "The Aff believes that the American economy will be restored will increase in consumer spending." The purpose isn't to just stimulate consumer spending, but to also reduce consumer debt. Tax rebates and business incentives together give each citizen an opportunity to see relief; whether that specific individual is needing of debt relief or additional assets to increase their spending. These two together will help resolve the economic crisis. "However, realistically, 40% of the claims will actually directly spend their rebates according to the drudgereport.com." 60/40 is a fantastic ratio. The other 60% will certainly use those assets to alleviate debt or increase investment spending. Your case is inherently flawed because you criticize the affirmative for causing inflation and failing to increase spending. Inflation is the result of escalating consumer spending. Your arguments contradict. Regardless, 40% is ideal because it is an increase in spending that is not exorbitant. The Bush Tax Cuts led to such great inflation because almost all recipients spent their rebates. Opponent 3: Rebates will cause inflation "The deficit spending will not be solved by giving money to Americans. It will result in the American dollar value becoming unstable. This will only increase the prices for gas and agricultural products. Thus, the rebates will never solve for recession. "Consumer Confidence Boost" is empirically false." The American dollar is already so unstable that the E.S.A. will not make any difference. The value of the dollar is assessed more in the long-term than the short-term. Increasing the value of the dollar would certainly help the economy but it is not a necessity to fix it. Drastically reducing government spending and decreasing exportation will resolve for the dollar depreciation. "1) It targets the wrong people. It gives people with less money more money when in all reality who is more likely to spend the money. A rich person who goes shopping every day and spend hundreds of dollars. Or the poor person who's in debt and can't afford to spend any of his money." It targets everyone. Everyone is the right people. This point is refuted by a previous argument (The purpose isn't to just stimulate consumer spending, but to also reduce consumer debt. Tax rebates and business incentives together give each citizen an opportunity to see relief; whether that specific individual is needing of debt relief or additional assets to increase their spending. These two together will help resolve the economic crisis). "2) People will not spend this money. Many people are in debt at the moment. The act will only work if a substantial amount of money is spent. But 60% of people are either, saving the money or paying off taxes. With over half the nation not actually spending this money the stimulus act does not uphold the idea of "consumer confidence". Because the stimulus package does not boost consumer confidence like it promises, the economy will continue into downfall." This is the same as your 3,1) point and your second contention. See previous arguments. Your economic analysis is very inaccurate. My previous arguments revised the definition of inflation, observation 1, refuted all contentions, and presented the causes of the economic crisis. Thanks, The Colonel