That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over next year.

it is big enough did you not read my first con.1 I would like to see your evidence and i have some evidence of my own." " I agree that 1% of our GDP can be big enough to help our economy, but if you take that 1% and distribute it over everyone then you break that hundreds of billions of dollars into tiny, insignificant amounts. Its a matter of where that 1% of our GDP in economic stimulus goes. The current policy spreads it around indiscriminately and so wastes the money.",It goes to businesses which make profits and thus hire people. Which helps the economy. The probelm with the economy is the liquidity. There is no spending and because of that the economy is failing and falling. So what do you do, you give to people spend on the economy, to keep people hired and inject money into the economy, which goes into banks, who will be more likely to work with individuals, who owe 200,000 dollars in debt or etc. It makes sense to give to the people, because the people decide, what they want to buy. Spending will boost the economy. " If someone owes $200,000 on a house worth only $150,000 and just had one of their own bread-winners laid off, $1,200 dollars is not going to make any different in their financial situation.", Not everybody owes 200,000 dollars on a house. Not all the rebates are going to people in that kind of debt. But you have to look at the probelm, like I said with liquidity as I said, the only way to help it is through these rebates. "Moreover, your "evidence" is nothing but a series of warrantless quotes from authors of unknown credibility. Just because some staff writer for some newspaper says something does not in any way make it true. ", The story from Businessweek was from a study from "When Jonathan Parker, a professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management, did his research on the effects of tax rebates the government doled out in 2001,", a Univerity, not a newspaper and Eric Thymoigne, a Professor from Fresno state University. "Your assertion that Friedman was only talking about the rich is not only warrantless but completely wrong. ", Freidman is a sponsor of capitalism and laissez.faire, which was a reason for the great depression. This debate has a lot to do with socialism, or the government spending on the economy.Friedman is against socialism in general, so you are of course using evidence form someone who opposes a system of economics, but he is not talking about neoclassical, he is talking about classical, so it must be disregarded from this debate. So what if he won the Noble Prize, yes he is credible, but give me someone other than a liberal classical economy guy. If you continue with this guy, you will lose. Why, because it is a theory, actions speak louder than words. The evidence for Northwestern proves, it worked in the past and it will work now. The same thing was happening in 2001, and the rebates worked. "The IRS will start mailing the checks in May. That means that the small number of people who filled out their income taxes months ago will start seeing checks trickling in sometimes in May." Where is your basis on this anyway, give me evidence, proving this claim or disregard it from the debate. No evidence, just a assumption on your part. Yes the money will be mailed in May, to everyone, how do I know, because they already added the allocated money to the deficit, check it out for yourself. It is for the 2007 tax return. All in all you have no evidence of this, just a assumption of that. " If the government spends enough money its sure to have some effect. .", biggest voter in the debate, I have to prove it will mitigate the slowdowns, nothing else. ANd you agreed it will. I win this debate, because you agreed it will mitigate. You dropped my job arguement as well, by just saying the press knows nothing, when , they get information form experts. I have provided credible evidence and I leave you will my last statement from the heart. Objects of the most stupendous magnitude, measures which affect the lives of millions born and unborn our now before us. My worthy opponent, has spoken with great ingenuity and eloquence, he has given a grime prognostication, but where he sees apocalypse, I see hope, I see not only hope, but the economy growing even further than it has gone before, because of this act. This act gives the economy a new life, a new dream of where our country is going. I see a new economy ready to take its place in the world. Not a recession, but an economy, so strong, it can take on anyone in the world. I am not without apprehensions, but the end we have in insight, is more than worth all the means. I believe the hour has come, my judgment approves this measure and my whole heart is any. All that I have, all that I am, all that I hope in this life, I am now ready to stake upon it. While I live, give me a vote for the Affirmative!