April Public Forum Debate

My apologies, my opponent seemed to be pulling the plug on his participation in this topic so I did the same. I shall at least try and summarize the debate as I see it. The whole topic of definitions really boils down to my central complaint about the equation that the proponent frames this topic in. His argument, by the way he defined/framed it is basically that if we hand out $160 billion dollars to people, the resolution is affirmed because more money in peoples hands will naturally mitigate an economic slowdown. My reason for engaging the topic at this level is to level the playing field and give the topic an actual reason for debate, to discuss the worthiness and potential effects of the package passed by Congress. My opponent reduces the topic to a semantic interpretation for the sake of winning an equation, versus actually discussing the merits of the impending package. Success, even under his interpretation implies a comparison to two other elements, doing nothing, or doing something else. I take issue with both alternatives, which he effectively ignores. I also consider whether this package could make things worse, which he dismisses due to a logistical constraint of time. If the result of the package is an extension or worsening of the pending recession, then the resolution should be rejected on face. Now, onto the economic discussion. Restating refuted arguments does not constitute an argument. My opponent places the consumer spending argument in a vacuum, and ignores all other economic variables like inflation, savings rates, etc. I'm assuming he has accepted GDP as the measure of slowdown mitigation, and yet he has yet to prove that a 1-11% increase in consumer spending would result in a sufficient gain of GDP to merit affirming the resolution. As I have proven, other economic factors, particularly inflation and our countries high debt ratio's will likely prevent such spending from having much effect at all. The second stated goal, regarding business investment has never really been refuted, especially in the sections where any business investment wouldn't yield economic returns (if they do) in the coming year. He makes blanket statements about businesses adjusting budgets and buying equipment, but doesn't substantiate any of them. A simple financial accounting class would reveal that these type of investments usually don't bear fruit until several quarters have passed. Just buying a tractor doesn't boost the economy. Finally, my opponent actually agrees that this package could extend or repeat the housing bubble, but dismisses this due to time constraints. This speaks to the fundamental disagreement we have with this topic. If the stimulus package actually makes our economy worse, regardless of the time frame, the resolution should be rejected on face. Otherwise, the comparative value of the package falls versus the alternative of doing nothing and letting the correction pass naturally or perhaps doing something that actually addresses the problems our economy faces. Affirming the resolution amounts to placing a band aid on a wound that has come dangerously close to an artery. The economic stimulus package is a waste of taxpayer dollars and will do little to nothing to impact the pending economic slowdown over the next year. Worse, it will likely exacerbate this recession, due to delaying the necessary corrections in the housing & financial markets, and possibly worsening our inflation by injecting more cash into the system by inflating our budget deficits. There is a reason they call them business cycles. We're approaching a downturn, its better we ride it out than to make it worse. Therefore, I recommend rejecting the resolution.