Pick your own debate 3!

I'm sure he was deeply inspired by President Clinton's remark that all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Here, it was about "bad. " The Stimulus Plan is corrupt, inefficient, did not provide significant stimulus, and has not achieved the goals proclaimed by its proponents. Con argues that, nonetheless, the sole criteria for determining whether it is bad legislation ought to be whether it has met objectives stated within the legislation. Even if Con's concept of narrowly reading the legislation is accepted, Con has not explained how the bills failures are consistent with the bill's written objective of "prudent management" nor can he point to "paying off political allies" among the five written objectives. I showed that even liberal supporters agree that the claims made for the bill should be used to judge it. 1. Con attempts an analogy, "When a patient shows up with a disease, we want to treat it right away. However, the recovery period may be months. " I'll go with the analogy. If the physician says, "You must take this expensive medicine immediately. There is no time to answer any questions. In fact there is no time to even read the prescription. Trust me, you will be cured immediately. " It then turns out that the patient mainly suffers harmful side effects for a year, and the physician says, "Trust me, you'll get better next year. " That's the correct analogy, with the question, "Is this good medical practice or not? " When proponents ram through legislation with allowing it to be read, it is reasonable to judge it on their claims. In fact, there is no alternative. 2. "I support the bill, if I claim that it can grow wings and fly away, does it make it bad legislation? " Yes, it makes it bad legislation if (a) you control passage and you don't allow anyone to read or study it and (b) it fails to meet it's your claims. Separately, it is properly judged as bad legislation if it includes payoffs to political allies, not stated as an objective of the bill. Payoffs are both unethical and inefficient, "bad" by any definition. 3. "[Pro] He has provided no evidence that shows that there was a lack of prudent management. " I showed that the bill demanded that the money be spent both quickly and prudently. Con does not contest the fact that it was not spent quickly. That it was not prudently managed is evidenced by my points 4, 5, 6. 7, and 8. The money went 2:1 to Obama supporters, it went to pay off unions at great extra expense, it included wasteful pork, and it was not properly accounted for on recovery. gov. 4. The legislation demands that union wages be paid, providing less infrastructure and fewer jobs. Con argues "Guess who the lowest priced bidder was? " I don't understand Con's response. The individual projects are put out to bid by local governments. If the law did not require union wages, the evidence is that more work is obtained for less taxpayer money spent. That's the way past state aid has worked. So is Con arguing that union wages are typically below market wages? If so, that would require extraordinary evidence to prove. Con has provided no evidence. 5. "And how do you propose to teach students with poor facilities, no administration, and no teachers since no one will teach without pension? " I would propose that state legislatures ought to e allowed to decide if they can get by without the parking lot being repaved, with 25% fewer administrators shuffling papers, an with teachers retiring on 60% of salary rather than 75%. It is grossly inefficient for Congress to attempt to preclude such cutbacks during a recession. 6. "Of course, my opponent has no argument on why the management was not prudent, nor can he prove that Obama was paying off supporters and not giving money prudently. " The arguments were clearly presented and supported by sources in points 4, 5, 6. and 7. Con can dispute the points, but it is unacceptable to claim that no arguments were made. 7. The pork might only be a trivial matter (? ) of a hundred billion, it might be more. The fact remains that there was an explicit promise of no pork, and therefore imprudent management not to have excluded pork. I claim that it clearly inefficient to be spending on a parking lot for Little League, when the bill had virtually no money for small business and none at all for venture capital. 8. Con did not attempt to defend the gross errors in expenditure tracking on recovery. gov. It stands as bad management. 9. The Stimulus Plan was sold on the basis of the claim that it would keep unemployment below 8%. We should reasonably expect the President to know and to state the objectives of the legislation, and to jug success based on those claims. The bill failed to meet those objectives. The resolution is affirmed.