POFO april Topic, POFOers only please.

Contention 1: Does not attack the core of our economic slowdown. The essence of our economic slowdown is caused by unemployment. The 2008 economic stimulus act does not advocate any benefits for the unemployed. Since the act does not attack the very core issues of our suffering economy, it thus will be insufficient in mitigating economic slowdowns. Contention 2: "Consumer Confidence Boost" is empirically false. Although the idea behind the stimulus package is mainly to increase consumer spending, the truth is: The tax incentives do not work. 1) Targets the wrong people. It gives people with higher income more money, and people less well off with less money. However, it fails to realize that people with less money are more likely to spend money given to them. Richer people are less likely to do so. 2) People will not spend this money. Many people are in debts at the moment. The act will only work if a substantial amount of people spend their rebates. However, over 60% already claimed that they will be either a) pocketing the cash, or b) paying taxes off. With over half of the nation not actually spending the money, the stimulus act evidently does not uphold the idea of "consumer confidence". Because the Stimulus Package does not boost consumer confidence like it promises, the economy will continue into downfall. REBUTTALS: Contention 1: The proposition claims that spending will increase. This is flawed for two reasons: 1) As stated above, over half of the nation claims they will not be directly spending their cash. Thus, spending will not drastically increase. The opponent's arguments only work in theory, and as when applied realistically, it does not work. 2) $300 - $600 is not enough to boost the economy. With only 40% of the nation claiming to spend the money, this creates enough reason to doubt the actual validity of the half-a-K tax rebates. Even if all of the nation directly spends the money, there is still the chance that the stimulus act will not work. Contention 2A: The proposition states that the Federal Reserve is lowering interest rates. We must ask ourselves: Where is the relevancy? Let's keep in mind, we are talking about the 2008 Economic Stimulus Act, not the Federal Reserve's actions. Even if the opponent completely wins their argument, the only thing it would be saying is that the Federal Reserve is capable of mitigating economic slowdowns, not the stimulus act. In short, the argument is non-relevant. Contention 2B: Once again, we come across a problem of relevancy. However, this time, the opponent decides to bring up the international European bank and their interactions with the Federal Reserve. Not once is the 2008 Economic Stimulus Act's usefulness mentioned. Once again, the argument is non-relevant. Now with the 1st contention having empirically denied, and the 2nd contentions being quite irrelevant, we come across the last argument. Contention 3: The opponent says that more people are going to be hired. There is no mention of HOW or WHY this would happen. We cannot just sit and expect the stimulus act to start lowering unemployment rates, and the proposition offers no evidence as to why it WOULD lower unemployment rates. This argument clearly offers no clear reason as to why the 2008 Economic Stimulus Act would lower unemployment rates. The act will not decrease unemployment rates for the 2 arguments proposed by the opposition. Thus, because the opponent's arguments are found to be quite irrelevant and unwarranted, negate.