Deficit spending is the best thing for the current economy and the future (see details)

-----Rebuttals-----1A - Yes, infrastructure is important, but that in and of itself doesn't justify borrowing or printing money to pay for it. When considering a budget, the most important things should be taken care of first, rather than just saying 'we can always borrow money later'. Just like going to the movies when you don't have enough money to pay rent is a bad idea, borrowing money to pay for something important, when you have spent your money on less-important items, is similarly a bad idea.1B/1C - $5 Trillion over the next 20 years, or $250 Billion a year. As I stated before, tax revenue in 2010 was approximately $2.3 trillion, so we should consider approximately 10-11% of the Federal budget as mandatory infrastructure spending. Pro would have the government add the $5 trillion on top of our current debt. If we were to do that, and continue at our current pace of adding approximately $1 trillion to our debt each year, then we would be at a staggering $40 Trillion dollars of debt by 2031.2A - Pro's source states that the $450 billion cost of updating the infrastructure would mostly be paid by current customers. There are just over 110 million households in the U.S.[1], meaning each household will pay on average up to $4000 to pay for these upgrades. Either way, this argument is irrelevant to the resolution.2B - Pro doesn't mention any costs for transportation upgrades. He quotes the amount of money currently spent each year(140 billion), but nothing shows what amount of money is actually needed, so no 'savings' can be derived.2C - Updating building codes doesn't have anything to do with governmental deficit spending.2D - Again, this has to do with regulations, not governmental spending.2E - Pro has failed to show actual savings from actual deficit spending.3A - Of course safety is a concern. The FHA needs about $6.5 billion more per year to keep bridges up to date. We can easily find that kind of money in a budget of $3.5 trillion, much of which isn't 'necessary' spending.4A - It's not a question of strict dollars to dollars. It's a question of whether or not borrowing or printing more money is worth it. The elpc.org study doesn't cite the cost of the train network it would put in, so I can't compare benefits. Similarly for the hrsupdates.com article,(which has no sources) it isn't a question of benefit, but who will pay for it and how.4B - Again, clean energy is a great thing, but Pro doesn't address what kind of energy, who will pay for it, or how.4C - Similar to other arguments, Pro isn't actually talking about government spending, costs of the deficit spending, and amount of savings. There is no actual point being made to argue against.5A - Baseless claims. What projects would create how many jobs, and at what cost? What would happen when those jobs are no longer needed?(Most of these governmental jobs would be temporary). This is just a different kind of stimulus. We gave cash to people to spend, trying to create temporary fake demand. This kind of spending just uses governmental money to give people pay checks to create temporary fake demand.5B - Pro doesn't address how and to what degree any projects would have an effect on utilization. He simply states that it would help.5C - Link doesn't lead to anything specific I can see. Pro is apparently arguing that we need more inflation... Inflation is "The rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising."[2] More inflation means prices of everything would rise, and in our current situation, that would be very, very bad. Printing money is one cause of inflation.5D - I would appreciate direct links, rather than links to blogs about blogs about blogs about data. Pro confuses real interest and nominal interest rates. The government isn't going to get paid to borrow, it is still going to pay. The difference is when it is going to pay.-----Rebuttal Conclusion-----Pro hasn't provided any real example of the type of government spending he is talking about. His figures have been twisted from his sources to try and argue his point. Again, I reassert that it is better for the government to spend money it has on infrastructure, rather than borrowing or printing more.[1] http://quickfacts.census.gov... [2] http://www.investopedia.com...