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

"The entire world economy rests on the consumer; if he ever stops spending money he doesn't have on things he doesn't need -- we're done for." This quote by Bill Bonner though primitive is true. We rely on the consumers of this country to keep our countries economy strong. This is why my partner and I affirm the resolution that the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year. First we will define a few key points then we will go on to affirm the resolution. First the definition of mitigate according to Black laws dictionary is to make less severe or to reduce. This proves that the affirmative only has to show that the 2008 economic stimulus plan will lessen the slowing down economy sometime within the next year. Our first argument is that it is historically proven direct economic stimulus will jumpstart the economy within a year. According to Rachael Beck from the associated press, During the 2001 recession, one-time rebates were paid starting in the third quarter, and consumer spending rose at a 7 percent rate in the fourth quarter, the economy grew at 1.6 percent annual rate in that quarter and 1.4 percent in the following quarter. This goes to prove that a direct stimulus plan will and does give the economy a boost that can lead to a more productive economy. Now we are not saying this is a miracle worker and it will solve all of our economic problems, but what we have just proven is that in the short term it does mitigate economic slowdown. Our second point is that the economic stimulus plan will boost the GDP and create jobs. According to Douglas Elmendorf of the Brookings institute, "A temporary stimulus plan of 100 billion dollars would boost the annualized the GDP growth by between .8 percent to 3 percent". Also said by Zhandi an economist in an article titled "Stimulus package will boost GDP" that the package agreed upon by house negotiators will be enough to boost the economy by 1.5 percentage points the second half of this year and .5 percent in the first half of 2009. that translates into 700,000 jobs more than what be crated in that time. Other economists are also forecasting a boost in the economy and jobs due to increased consumer spending which counts for two thirds of economic growth. Our third argument is that the economic stimulus act of 2008 treats the causes of the recession not the symptoms. A recession is caused by several factors such as a raise in interest rates, consumer spending decreasing, unemployment, a fall in government funding, and a lack of business investment as stated by Richard pettinger and deduced from the Gross Domestic Product equation. (GDP=C + I + G + (X – M)) If we look at each of these causes of a recession or a slowing economy we can clearly see that the economic stimulus act of 2008 will treat the core causes of the problem. For example the unemployment rate has been increasing which means that there is less money given to the consumer to spend. Two factors that lead to a recession. However this stimulus act gives money directly to the consumer to increase consumer spending and over the next year it will create 700,000 additional jobs as we stated in our second argument. Also another key part is the investment. Without investment our economy slows, but there are provisions in the stimulus that will boost the investments of the small business's. such as the 50% depreciation and the 250,000 dollar write offs. This leaves one other factor. The interest rates. The stimulus act does not have anything to do with the interest rates but as we know the interest rates were recently lowered by the federal reserve spurring more investment in the private sector. This macro economic policy along with the micro economic stimulus plan effectively eliminates all the causes of a economic slowdown or recession. The Cons one main argument is an anology between 2001 and 2008. However, this analogy breaks down because of the use of Post Hoc by the Con. In 2001 the economy was devastated by the 9/11 attacks which is responsible for the economic stagnation the Con claims. Consequently without the 9/11 attack the stimulus package probably would have worked. Now a few questions: In general dont tax cuts increase economic activity? please clarify the macro economic principles of your case.