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

Now from my opponent's last round we can see that he has extremely under covered all of my arguments and has just said I'm right you're wrong. Now to cover my opponent arguments. My opponent says "all the quote is, a reason, bush is not the reason the economy is bad, because it started to spiral out of control in the 1980's. It won't fail, it mitigated the damages." First my opponent has failed to see the impotence of the attack on the Bush quote if I prove why the quote is wrong or why you should not trust the author my opponent has failed to support the reason that he supports the resolution then my opponent is no longer has meet the word resolved in the resolution and thus has failed to affirm the entire resolution. Now the reason that you as the voter should vote for the con side on this is because it the pro doesn't have to support the entire resolution it becomes imposable for the con side to win because the pro could just say they don't support that part of the resolution and could link out of any argument. So to extend what I said before, first the reason that this quote is unable to prove why it will be successful is that it is based on what the people do and there is no way to be sure that they will spend it in the right way. This argument is supported by the quote from glen beck that states that the majority of the money will be given to china and will not help the US, now my opponent only argument against this is "some will be spenmt on the U.S.". Now in this we can see 2 flaws. 1, I agree that "some" money will be spend on things that are made in the US, but the problem is that because the majority of thing that people buy is not made in the US thus there will not be a big effect on our economy. 2, we see that because my opponent failed to attack my argument that the money will not be spent fast enough, look to the peace of evidence from fox28 we see that (using the 2001-03 plan which has been one of my opponents biggest example to support what he is saying) not all the money will be spent. Combined with my first argument we can see that there is a 0% chance that there will be any positive effects on our economy. The second reason that the quote is flawed is that it from Bush whose past plan for economic stimulus is what has caused this economic slowdown. My opponent has not provide any arguments against so extend my argument that says that because Bush gave people money and told them to spend it he increased the supply of things which cause there to be surplus thus causing the value of houses to drop causing people's mortgage to cost more then the homes were worth cause foreclosures which is the cause of this current economic crisis. Now cross apply all the above reasons to prove how there is no way that this plan has a single shred of solvency meaning that it can't mitigate the economic slowdown Now my opponent states, "You won't have a tax increase until 2010, even, then, it is your own money you paid already." Now if this is not a contradiction I don't know what one is, because you say in the first part that the tax increase to pay for this plan will be in 2010 then he says that it money you have already given. Now the only way that this could happen is that the US government in 2010 was to create a time machine and send the money from 2010 to today. The point is, is that the US government will have to barrow some money from a foreign nation as supported by the town hall evidence. So because money will have to be barrowed to support the deficit it will be seen as economic weakness and cause a even worse economic down turn. My opponents only other attack is "Your evidence is flawed, mine still stands." But the only way my opponent could prove that is by one extending his arguments which he has not and two he could provide some support for his arguments which he has not done either. So this argument should be the other way around because I have provided ample amount of support for my arguments while my opponent has provided almost none. So finally to provide the voters in this debate. First my opponent has provided no offence or defense ageist my attack with word resolved. Second the fact that I have given why there is a 0% chance of this solving for the economic problems. And finally we see that it will have negative consequences on the US economy.