the 700B$ bailout is a good/bad idea.

As pro, my opponent is trying to prove that the bailout is a bad idea. I will start by negating his contentions. "It will set a dangerous precedent" The precedent was set back in 1970 when the government bailed out a few failing rail road companies. http://www.propublica.org... Sometimes, when a very important part of the market fails, it effects the whole market, and the government sees it important to see it saved, which leads to the negation of the next point. I do not support the slow growth of government power and regulation. This is not regualtion. And that is another debate. "Consumer confidence can be rebound." Funny for my opponent to use the Great Deppression as an example. The profits of companies were facaded and corrupt and it resulted in a massive stock bust which essentially ruined the economy. there was no government save until long afterwards. I disagree with the way the Deppression was handled with for the following decade but that's another debate. After that long deppression, consumer confidence must have been rebound. the stock market is not only up and running, but it is booming. Obviously, consumer confidence had been re-earned. And for clarification, my opponent stated that, "The bailout will call for every taxpayer to pay 7,000$ of taxes." That would be true if there were a hundred million taxpayers in the United States. For the purpose of simplicicty, we will assume that there are actually two hundred million taxpayers (out of three hundred million citizens), which is generously low. Then, the 700 billion dollars divides into about $3,500 for one year, which is about $300 a month (still a generously high estimate). My opponent also says that an inteligent population will then save their money rather than spend it. How does he think that will happen? The large majority of banks will close due to lack of income from the problem that is to be fixed by this program. A smart population will not save money that they fear will grow worthless. To the first point: "It will not save the economy" The alternative is to let the banking industry to collapse. My opponent has a limited understanding of capitalism. I appreciate his basic explanation though. Even before the company is made, it starts with a person who has an idea. Usually, that person is not extremely wealthy, and needs a loan to start this business. It is the bank, a part of the private sector, that usually gives this loan. Then, the business can start, buy or rent land, build, hire, and begin it's purpose. Should the country's banking system collapse, then when the rest of the economy collapses as a result, then there wil be nothing to put the economy back up. The banking industry is a very basic and important industry and our system of capitalism is very reliant on it. The bailout will temporarily save that industry, and then the industry will adapt on its own to avoid a similar catastrophe, which will be a long term solution. We don't have to head into another Great Deppression and this is the way to ensure it is a rather short one. I accept your apology about missing the first round of the debate. i do hope you will not miss another now that we are really debating.