Pick your own debate 3!

Before I go on to my opponent's points, please note that in making my points, I will be as blunt and straightforward as possible. Please do not interpret this as rudeness or lack of etiquette, I just believe that the issue is better tackled without excessive verbiage. Now, straight to the point. My opponent has included many sources and many accusations, but let's not lose sight of his main argument: The ARRA (Stimulus plan) did not do what it said it would do. This is the heart and soul of the debate. The ARRA itself has a statement of purpose, which was provided in the wiki article my opponent posted. This is what we will be talking about. Please see this source and look for Statement of Intent: . http://en.wikipedia.org... If I said that the Stimulus plan would sprout wings and fly away, and it hasn't, then does this make it bad legislation? Absolutely not. Because this is something that I state. Please note that in almost all of my opponent's points, he points to something *SOMEONE* said would occur with the Stimulus plan. Not once does he state what the Stimulus Plan's statement of intent is. This brings me to my counterpoints. 1. The word "stimulus" is thrown around by my opponent to mean "immediate action". I would like to point out that the actual legislation is titled: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This sounds rather boring and rather slow, as is the case with most "recoveries". We know it as the "Stimulus" package only because it was marketed as the stimulus package. If my opponent wants to attack this point, he should have lashed out at the people supporting the legislation and giving false advertisement. The legislation itself mentions nothing about time, speed, or immediacy. 2. The Congressional Budget Office source my opponent makes is a follow up of this point. Purely by my opponent's own interpretation of what "Stimulus" means, he discredits the legislation. I repeat: The legislation does not show any time limit. It does not declare that it is a quick, one-shot wonder. It announces itself as a Recovery act. 3. Same point. My opponent argues that until the money arrives in civilian pockets, it isn't stimulus. First, the legislation is a recovery act that is called a stimulus act. Second, it doesn't say when the stimulation will occur. No broken promises. 4. In reference to Union wages, I ask my opponent to suggest an alternative. Union labor workers getting paid more will have more to spend. Remember, the main goal is to stimulate the economy, not weatherize homes. Weatherizing homes is a side effect. The only alternative would be to hire illegal immigrants who would shuttle the money back to their homeland, further hindering the economy. 5. Cutting state spending at this time is what every state wants to do. Without this restriction, states will undoubtedly cut education, which is detrimental as this recession may last a long time. Without education, unemployment problems will compound. 6. In reference to Obama supporters getting more, did the ARRA actually mention that this would not be the case? 7. Pork- My opponent should read his source with a little more detail. The hundreds of billions stated were not in pork, but on *POSSIBLE* unnecessary spending. As for the examples: Green vehicles for federal employees, Green technology, ship building, renovation of public facilities, etc. My opponent sees these things as frivolous and unnecessary. I see them as excellent ways of creating jobs that people with few qualifications can do. Besides, this is what Obama said. Does the legislation itself say that it is free of pork-barrel spending? 8. Tracking of the plan is not included in the plan. Again, this is what Obama said. The legislation itself does not state that it will be tracked with 100% accuracy. 9. The Stimulus plan did not announce any goal for unemployment. My opponent's source stated that "The White House" made that particular claim. Nowhere in the actual legislation does it mention the exact benefits of unemployment. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the legislation did not help unemployment. It could be that the Whit House simply could not foresee the massive amount of unemployment. Without the stimulus package, unemployment may be even higher. In summary, my opponent's argument mainly attacked external views and promises of the legislation. My opponent defined "bad legislation" as "legislation not efficient or effective in accomplishing its stated purpose. " I suggest my opponent begin attacking what he should be attacking: The purpose stated in the ACTUAL legislation. I anxiously await my opponent's response. Thank you.