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

"The first is that it is simply not enough. 60,000 people lost their jobs in the last quarter. There have been millions of foreclosures in the last year. Tens of millions more have lost untold thousands in home equity. Many people now have negative equity in their home. That means that they owe more on the house than its worth, meaning they have no incentive to pay back the loan on their house and every incentive to let the bank foreclose on their house. At the point where people have lots tens of not hundreds of thousands of dollars in a life long investment, lost their jobs, or are simply made homeless, a couple hundred or even $1,200 dollars cannot come close to making up for that.", 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. Con.3 creates jobs According to Ron Scherer | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor from the January 22, 2008 edition," "It may be too late, but it could mitigate the severity of the downturn or even jump-start us out of a recession," says Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. "But I think that stimulus is helpful." Mr. Zandi, who is skeptical Congress will act quickly, estimates the proposed package could add $80 billion to real GDP in the second half of the year. That translates to about 1 percentage point of annualized growth. He also estimates that would support some 400,000 jobs. ", This means it can mitigate the job loss by providing jobs. "The second reason it is ineffective is because the tax rebates will be ineffective is because it will not actually affect how people spend. The economist Milton Friedman argued (and won the Nobel prize in economics for) that people spend based on their expected future income. That means as long as people think the economy is weak and they could lose their job or house then it does not matter how much money is given back in tax rebates, they will always save it if they think that hard times are ahead. This as been empirically proven with the first Bush tax cuts where people tended to save the money rather than spend it.", People are going to spend as I said before they are giving it to the consumers that spend all their money middle class and lower class. The most likely to spend and Milton Friedman is mainly talking about the upper class, how don't spend. They can't save it anyway, they have bills to pay and food to get. They will spend and we had a similar situation in 2001, and according to my research in con.1 subpoint b I think, it shows it made a substantial stimulus. Meaning people spent it. "The final reason that the economic stimulus package will not be effective over the next year because it simply takes longer than that for economic policy to take affect. Most people wont be filing their tax returns until April and will only be getting their checks some months later. It will be about six months from now before anyone gets their rebate checks. Even if everyone spent all of their checks as soon as they got them, it would take months for businesses to turn that increase in profit into increased investment and increased jobs.", According to the I.R.S., the checks will be in the hands of the people in May. As far as it would take months, hey I have at least a year for them to do that, because 2/3 of the rebates will be spent in the first 6 months starting in May 2008. All I have to prove is it will mitigate, meaning slow down, look to my contentions, which he has not touched at all. He is making contentions without looking to my case. 1. It is big enough about 1% of the G.D.P., read con.1 2. Does attack the probelm, people aren't spending 3.It will take effect, he says, it won't but I have warrants and data for that to prove it will go in on May 2008