POFO debaters April topic, Practice only POFOers please

Alright so as the negative I am going to accept his definitions and overviews, with one exception. I am going to say that on his second overview of this round that he explains a standard for us to debate that is substantial, because at the point where he doesn't there is no bright line to affirm this resolution and you default negative. So he needs to provide you a substantial number that will be the brightline by which he judges this round. I am also going to introduce one final overview to this round. Overview 1: In order to win this round he needs to prove that there is a direct CAUSATIONAL link between this economic stimulus package and any economic benefits. This means that just because he says our economy will recover he needs to prove that this is the cause, not that both things occur simultaneously but that this package will CAUSE the economic benefits not that they will happen by themselves. Contention 1: Harms of doing this The fact remains that our government is running a substantial budget deficit, and at that point this "deficit spending" is going to hurt out economy. Look to this analogy to understand the argument if you are in a room with 3 people and one of your friends gives your other friend 10 dollars, what actual money is generated? Cross apply this analogy, by supporting this bill we understand that the money is being taken from our government to be given to us. So now either the government spends less on important issues like health care and well fare or they print more money. This printing of more money lowers the value of the currency and at that point the money given to us is no longer that beneficial in so far as this rebate will raise the price of goods and services more then the 600 dollars we receive this year. So looking in retrospect we see that logically if we get the money it has to come from somewhere and because this act doesn't specifically tell you we must go under the assumption that we will continue deficit spending. In so far as we continue deficit spending there is no way this can solve. Contention 2: Rebates won't solve The fact is that in order for the rebates to attempt to solve the issue they need to stimulate spending. The fact is that according to a study done by International Council of Shopping Centers, only 24% of people said they would spend the money. Therefore we won't see the boost into the economy all we will see is the inflation mentioned above so there is no way we can do this. Also this bill does not do enough to solve the problems, the biggest cost of our economic down turn is the lessening of the dollar, and the struggling of the housing market. In so far as this act harms our dollar even more by increasing inflation which limits the buying power of the dollar you see you must vote negative right there. Then this bill does far from enough to solve the sub prime mortgage crisis and the rest of the credit card predatory practices that have lead to the increase in consumer debt, and foreclosures. These foreclosures not only directly harms the people whose home is foreclosed on but it also negative effects the entire market because the market is based on other house sales so it drives down the whole market. Therefore because it will not solve the problems logically you negate right there. Contention 3: Rebates don't work Harold Black Professor of Finance, University of Tennessee explains "no package of transitory and temporary measures has ever been effective in stimulating economic growth. Even the politicians know this. Historically the only stimulus measures that have had a lasting impact have been those that are more permanent." This is shown time and time again when analysts explain that it wasn't the 2001 stimulus given to solve the problem but it was the 2003 tax cuts. Brian Riedl explains THAT even after the tax rebate of 2001 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—that the economy finally and immediately recovered. This act does not actually cut taxes so the affirmative can not claim the benefits of a tax cut under the status quo. Therefore because historically the rebates don't work, you vote negative. Now to his case. Contention 1:Tax Rebates Work So for response look back to my case where I show you the logical reason that they don't work, how they didn't work in the past and finally why they don't solve for the problems so they can't solve the problem this time. Sub contention a:Tax rebates- His main argument here is that because it goes to the lower and middle income families the rebates are more likely to be spent. However, in the study of these " low and middle income families" I show you that only 1/4 of them actually plan to spend so his advocacy that they will spend is empirically false. Sub contention b: Has Worked in the past I show you where it doesn't work and why. His quote says that we respond to them on paper but magically it happened. The more spending by consumers is good how ever i show you that it didn't actually help our economy and he doesnt doesn't prove to you that this increase in spending is actually due to the stimulus package. All he says is that people got receipts and there was spending, that doesn't show the link. For example I can ride my bike and get fat, but that doesn't mean riding my bike made me fat. Therefore because of my second overview you drop this from the round. Contention 2: Business Incentives First off, he doesn't explain how it will actually go about creating jobs, all he does is provide you a quote. Now look at the quote and see that it doesn't account for the jobs lost, because the money comes from somewhere so if it is creating jobs in one sector jobs will be lost in another. That argument by me is supported by his own quote, notice the fact that it doesn't say a net increase or anything synonymous all it says is jobs will be created with out accounting for jobs lost. Con.3 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac He doesn't explain what this plan does to advance this program and therefore these "benefits" he proposes can't be attributed to this package because we don't know if these benefits would be achieved by not having this act. Also if they sell them back to the market at a lower price its going to drive down the rest of the market because as i discussed above the market is intertwined so therefore this contention turns to my side. Con.4 Sociological boost First off his evidence never says there will be just that there maybe, so lets look to why there won't be. Since people know this is a temporary solution and will eventually have to be paid back by us we don't get this boost. If we did get this sociological boost on the economy we would spend the money as opposed to not as the evidence provided above. The logic is that if we are confident in the economy we spend more, and that is shown time and time again. little b. Its just enough He doesn't show you directly how this package will solve the problem all he says is its enough, that may be true. 1% of the GDP maybe enough to solve the problem if the package was capable of solving the problem which its not so therefore that claim means little to nothing. Little C-Middle Class He provides you evidence from middle class saying " a smart economic stimulus plan could prevent the downturn or soften its effects, but not just any stimulus package will do. To be effective, an economic stimulus package must direct money to those who will spend it quickly, boosting consumer demand and prompting increased production and economic growth." How ever lets look to this argument and see what it really . First off in order to be effective it needs to be given to those who will spend it but at the point where less then 1/4 of the people will spend the money by his how evidence it can't be sucessful. Therefore I urge a negative ballot.