BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Majority of economists believe government can stimulate economy

Eugene Robinson. "Roll over the Republicans". Real Clear Politics. February 10, 2009 - "Begin with the most fundamental question: Does the U.S. economy desperately need a massive stimulus, or not? There are economists who doubt it's possible for the government to effectively stimulate an economy of such size and complexity. Those economists, however, are in the minority. [...] The most respected economic wise men and women of both parties believe a huge stimulus is needed quickly to keep a dire economic situation from sinking into catastrophe."
2009 US stimulus accommodates Republican tax-cutting views

Eugene Robinson. "Roll over the Republicans". Real Clear Politics. February 10, 2009 - "Obama's plan was criticized by some Democrats for including a heavy component of tax cuts; that's the Republican prescription that helped get us into these desperate straits, and voters made clear in November that it's time to try something else. But Obama and his economic team found that there were only so many "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects to fund, and while straightforward government spending packs a bigger stimulative punch, tax cuts would help to some degree. So, from the beginning, the plan accommodated Republican ideology."
Stimulus wisely creates jobs to help fix/update roads

Barack Obama. "We Can't Afford to Wait". February 9, 2009 - "it's not just the jobs that will benefit Indiana and the rest of America. It's the work people will be doing: Rebuilding our roads, bridges, dams and levees. Roads like US 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on, and that connect small towns and rural communities to opportunities for economic growth. And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart."
2009 US stimulus will create or save millions of jobs

Barack Obama. "We Can't Afford to Wait". February 9, 2009 - "At [the] core [of the Recovery and Reinvestment Plan] is a very simple idea: to put Americans back to work doing the work America needs done. [...] The plan will save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years. But not just any jobs - jobs that meet the needs we've neglected for far too long and lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth: jobs fixing our schools; computerizing medical records to save costs and save lives; repairing our infrastructure; and investing in renewable energy to help us move toward energy independence. The plan also calls for immediate tax relief for 95 percent of American workers."
2009 US stimulus needs to be effective, not bipartisan

Eugene Robinson. "Roll over the Republicans". Real Clear Politics. February 10, 2009 - "This is not, repeat not, a time for compromise. Meeting in the middle, which the Senate sees as its role in our democracy, renders the whole exercise potentially useless. If we don't get enough money into the economy, and if we don't do it soon, we risk wasting a king's ransom on a stimulus that's too puny to stimulate. [...] This is not an issue where the answer is to be found in the 'middle.' This isn't a matter of left, right and center, it's a matter of yes or no: Does the federal government try to get the economy moving again, or not?"
US stimulus spends too much on roads and bridges

Eliot Spitzer. "Robots, Not Roads". Slate. Jan. 5, 2009 - "The 'off the shelf' infrastructure projects that can be funded immediately and provide immediate demand-side stimulus are almost by definition not the transformative investments we really need. Paving roads, repairing bridges that need refurbishing, and accelerating existing projects are all good and necessary, but not transformative. These projects by and large are building or patching the same economy with the same flaws that got us where we are. Our concern should be that as we look for the next great infrastructure project to transform our economy, we might rebuild the Erie Canal and find ourselves a century behind technologically."
Funding government projects will stimulate jobs/economy

Steven Pearlstein. "Wanted: Personal Economic Trainers. Apply at Capitol." Washington Post. February 6, 2009 - "And then there is Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), complaining in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal that of the 3 million jobs that the stimulus package might create or save, one in five will be government jobs, as if there is something inherently inferior or unsatisfactory about that. (Note to Coburn's political director: One in five workers in Oklahoma is employed by government.)"
Stimulus will succeed with good management and supplemental action

The right set of spending, management, and supplemental action can ensure that the stimulus is effective. The stimulus package itself is only one part of the equation. Ensuring against no-bid contracts, enforcing transparency, and efficiently administrating the rapid expenditure of funds is very important. In addition, it is important to simultaneously shore up the financial system with a plan to fix the housing market and thaw the credit market. All these things must be done in concert in order for the stimulus to be effective.
Stimulus is better than consequences of no stimulus

Barack Obama. "We Can't Afford to Wait". February 9, 2009 - "The situation we face could not be more serious. We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression. Economists from across the spectrum have warned that if we don't act immediately, millions more jobs will be lost, and national unemployment rates will approach double digits. More people will lose their homes and their health care. And our nation will sink into a crisis that, at some point, we may be unable to reverse."
Economic stimulus by government intervention always fails

Robert Higgs. "Instead of stimulus, do nothing - seriously". Christian Science Monitor. February 9, 2009 - "Hardly anyone [...] is asking the most important question: Should the federal government be doing any of this? [...] Federal intervention rests on the presumption that officials know how to manage the economy and will use this knowledge effectively. This presumption always had a shaky foundation, and we have recently witnessed even more compelling evidence that the government simply does not know what it's doing. The big bailout bill enacted last October; the Federal Reserve's massive, frantic lending for many different purposes; and now the huge stimulus package all look like wild flailing - doing something mainly for the sake of being seen to be doing something - and, of course, enriching politically connected interests in the process."
US stimulus must be passed immediately to avoid greater crisis

Barack Obama. "We Can't Afford to Wait". February 9, 2009 - "I can tell you with complete confidence that endless delay or paralysis in Washington in the face of this crisis will bring only deepening disaster. [...] We've had a good debate. Now it's time to act. That's why I am calling on Congress to pass this bill immediately. Folks here in Elkhart and across America need help right now, and they can't afford to keep on waiting for folks in Washington to get this done."
Spending provides more economic stimulus than tax cuts

"Filling the hole". Economist. Dec 11th 2008 - "Tax rebates or tax cuts will get more money into consumers’ hands quickly, but in today’s environment much of that boost will simply be saved, as people plug the holes in their finances left by the collapsing values of their houses and retirement portfolios, or just pay off debts. If consumers are unwilling to spend, the best way for a government to boost demand is to spend more itself. One approach is to send large dollops of federal cash directly to America’s struggling states"
Stimulus spending violates principles of supply-side economics

Yaron Brook. "To Stimulate The Economy, Liberate It". Forbes. February 14th, 2008 - "we must first recognize that the key economic activity that causes growth is not consumer spending but production. [...] Economic growth means an increase in the amount of wealth that exists in a country--and all wealth must be produced. [...] The focus of today's stimulus packages on consumer spending is therefore completely backward. Consumption is a consequence of production. This fact is ignored by the Bush plan [and Obama plan], which attempts to achieve prosperity through $100 billion in deficit-spending. Though this might bring the appearance of prosperity, in the same way that an unemployed man appears prosperous if he goes on a shopping spree with his credit cards, the reality will be the opposite."
Allowing recession will enable stronger economic recovery

Amity Shlaes. "Obama's gift to GOP is challenge to supply siders". Bloomberg. February 9, 2009 - "Cut the tax rate on capital gains to 5 percent. Halve the corporate tax rate. Fund a new, super-strong Securities and Exchange Commission to monitor anything that's traded, including the haziest derivative. [...] Buy homeowners out of mortgages they can't afford, and protect the rights of lenders. Make Social Security solvent by curtailing the annual growth in benefits. Forget one "S" word, stimulus, and learn to use two "R" words -- rent and recession. [...] Too costly, you might say, or too extreme. But the ideas above are neither costlier nor more extreme than the almost- trillion-dollar stimulus package moving through Congress. And they are more likely to bring long-term growth than the legislation advanced by President Barack Obama."
Americans voted for progressive thinking of 2009 US stimulus

President Barack Obama - "The notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care, that we can somehow deal with this in piecemeal fashion and still expect our economy and our country to thrive. I reject those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."[3]
Fear-mongering on consequences of no US stimulus is wrong

David Keene. "From hope to doomsday". The Hill. February 9, 2009 - "There is no denying the seriousness of the current recession, but the specter of a still-popular president on television night after night to predict that things are going to get much, much worse is not something one would call confidence-inspiring. One can lead by inspiring or by trying to scare the heck out of people. In our country, at least, successful presidents have used the inspirational approach — the approach that Mr. Obama took during his campaign, but which he seems to have abandoned."
Majority of US stimulus is immediate to fight recession now.

Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - "The vast majority of what is in these two bills is pretty good stimulus."[5] This includes "automatic stimulators", such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, money that is typically quickly and fully spent. In addition, the majority of money will be spent within the first year of the stimulus package, providing more short-term, "good" stimulus to get the economy rolling quickly.
Adding to debt/deficit to fight recession is justified

Martin Feldstein. "The case for fiscal stimulus in U.S." The Korea Herald. February 3, 2009 - "Under normal circumstances, I would oppose this rise in the budget deficit and the higher level of government spending. [...] Now, however, increased government spending and the resulting rise in the fiscal deficit are being justified as necessary to deal with the economic downturn [...] When the recession is over, the United States and virtually every other country will have substantially higher debt-to-GDP ratios. At that point, it will be important to develop policies to reduce gradually the relative level of government spending in order to shift to fiscal surpluses and reduce the debt burden."
Longer-term spending is not "waste"; helps sustain stimulus

Steven Pearlstein. "Wanted: Personal Economic Trainers. Apply at Capitol." Washington Post. February 6, 2009 - "Let’s review some of the more silly arguments about the stimulus bill, starting with the notion that 'only' 75 percent of the money can be spent in the next two years, and the rest is therefore 'wasted.' As any economist will tell you, the economy tends to be forward-looking and emotional. So if businesses and households can see immediate benefits from a program while knowing that a bit more stimulus is on the way, they are likely to feel more confident that the recovery will be sustained. That confidence, in turn, will make them more likely to take the risk of buying big-ticket items now and investing in stocks or future ventures."
2009 US stimululs can be paid for by more progressive taxes

Robert Kuttner. "Time to Think Big". American Prospect. February 10, 2009 - "Looking forward, we need a very different sort of economy, one that restores a balanced form of capitalism. At the core of this change is a long-term increase in public outlay, investing in areas vital to economic growth and social decency. Once the recession is over, this increase in public investment needs to be paid for with a more progressive tax system."
Much stimulus rightly goes toward long-term societal needs

Steven Pearlstein. "Wanted: Personal Economic Trainers. Apply at Capitol." Washington Post. February 6, 2009 - "what's striking is that supposedly intelligent people are horrified at the thought that, during a deep recession, government might try to help the economy by buying up-to-date equipment for the people who protect us from epidemics and infectious diseases, by hiring people to repair environmental damage on federal lands and by contracting with private companies to make federal buildings more energy-efficient."
Large stimulus is appropriate for large economic crisis

Scot Lehigh. "A large stimulus bill for large problems". The Boston Globe. February 6, 2009 - "Is the stimulus plan large? Yes, and with good reason. Our economic problems are as well. With consumers poorer from $6 trillion in vanished housing wealth and $7 trillion in vaporized stock, we're set to suffer annual losses in overall economic activity of a trillion dollars this year and a trillion or more next year. It's not just consumer spending that has collapsed. Other traditional generators of economic growth - business investment, housing construction, and exports - are all anemic. [...] That leaves government spending as the nation's best hope for softening a major downturn."[1]
Stimulus increases debt, inflation, interest rates, harms economy

David Freddoso. "The Case for No Stimulus". National Review. February 3, 2009 - "Every penny of such a package must be borrowed, because the government is already running a $1.2 trillion deficit this year and faces a $703 billion deficit for next year, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The question, then, is whether the government can help the economy by spending money if it can only do so by first sucking that money out of the economy."
2009 US stimulus lacks short-term spending for immediate stimulus

John Norquiest. "Stimulus to Nowhere". Planetizen. January 22, 2009 - "Spending projects will take years to get under-way. Is "Shovel-Ready" Enough? State bureaucracies claim to have thousands of "shovel-ready" projects. But examining the list of 'shovel ready' state projects at aashto.org you find a list of decades-old freeway expansion proposals, large-scale projects that according to FHWA estimates, only 27% will be under construction within a year . Intimately familiar with the realities of transportation funding deployment, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office offered cautionary advice to the Appropriations Committee on just this point."
Stimulus risks being too small not too large

Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect. - Stimulus "needs to be adequate to do the job. Eight hundred and twenty billion is about 2.5% of GDP. But the economy is sinking at the rate of five to six percent. So they may find out they have to come back and ask for more." Prominent economist Paul Krugman has also stated he believes that roughly $800b in economic stimulus is "too small".[2]
Full-body scans pose no more risk than x-ray machines

Arthur Weinreb. "Full-body scanners; it's just common sense." Canada Free Press. January 8, 2010: "The CBC warned that the scanners emit radiation. Well, if ways have been found protect x-ray technicians and others who work with radiation, then the screeners can be protected. And there was nothing to suggest that flyers who get scanned are at risk although when the machines are put into use, that will inevitably come up."
Privacy rights need not be sacrificed for security

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said on January 9th, 2010: "We don't need to look at naked 8-year-olds and grandmothers to secure airplanes. Are we really going to subject 2 million people per day to that? I think it's a false argument to say we have to give up all of our personal privacy in order to have security."[14]
Full-body scans more effectively reveal concealed weapons.

Full-body scans look under the cloths to clearly reveal potential weapons and bombs. Pat-downs cannot do this as effectively, as they rely on touch. Thick clothing can avoid detection by pat-downs, and pat-downs cannot enter into the genital and buttocks areas sufficiently (do to privacy concerns), which is why weapons are often concealed in under-wear. Scanners get around these potential hick-ups, effectively revealing any potential weapons and bombs in these sensitive areas of the body.
Full-body scanners cannot replace human security staff in terms of cost-efficiency.

Although the fact is conceded that full-body scanners may be more effective in terms of increasing security, it is not economically possible for the company to completely rely airport security on these machines. They are expensive to manufacture in the first place. Secondly, they require constant maintenance that will always persist as a spot on the airport's budget allocated. Third, replacement for these machines will be costlier and time-consuming to perform as compared to replacing human security staff.
Scanners do not detect low-density items very well

A British defense-research firm reportedly found that full-body scanners can be unreliable in detecting "low-density" materials like plastics, chemicals, and liquids, which is what the 2009 Christmas "underwear bomber" had stuffed in his briefs. While a hazy outline is often revealed for such items, the blurriness can often prevent the detection of such items, particularly when hundreds of thousands of passengers are being screened daily.[5]
Security scans of children are not pornographic

Arthur Weinreb. "Full-body scanners; it's just common sense." Canada Free Press. January 8, 2010: "Minors should be scanned and to link these scans to child porn is ludicrous. Police officers routinely possess child pornography all the time. Not only do they possess it but they distribute it to prosecutors who further distribute it to defense lawyers. Then the prosecutors further distribute it to judges who show juries. For some reason these people aren’t considered to have committed criminal acts because they are doing what they do to protect the public. Just like those who operate full body scanners are doing."
There are better alternatives to body scanners at airports

Chris McBee, director of sales and marketing for Syagen Technology, developed a prototype called The Guardian. TSA contributed $1.5 million but did not continue the program. That’s unfortunate, Mr. McBee says: "We have a better mousetrap. There are solutions out there that are viable alternatives to whole body imaging and that have superior detection characteristics." In addition to The Guardian, others say that a device called "the puffer" has advantages. The device relies on puffed air to knock-loose and detect possible bomb materials on a passenger. This allows for the superior detection of hard-to-find materials in places like body cavities. And, it also avoids the privacy implications of full-body scanners.[16]
Scanning procedure is always optional to all passengers.

Anyone who refuses to be scanned will receive an equivalent screening in a full pat-down. So, the passenger has the choice, and is not coerced into receiving what may be viewed by the individual as an intrusive "virtual strip search". The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, for example, implemented such a program in May of 2010 at Kelowna airport in B.C., where passengers were body-scanned on a voluntary basis, apparently without major complaint.[10]
Scanners can be modified to accommodate children.

Terrorist groups do not do age discrimination when it comes to situations of terrorist's acts. However, #1 the photographs can be obscured or face can be covered while scanning showcasing pictures like these. #2 the pictures are ghostly (i.e they don affect privacy issues for minors) #3 the new full body scan machines are well equipped to make such security checks are not obscene. We shouldn't gamble with lives on issues which can be tackled by policies & technology.
Full-body scans are a valuable piece of larger strategy

"Full-body scanners are a help, but no panacea." The Boston Globe. January 10, 2010: "No single technology can keep terrorists from boarding airplanes with bomb materials. That’s why expensive full-body scanners are not cure-alls for security breaches. It’s wise to expand the use of scanners, but only as part of a broader strategy to make flying safer."
Expire Bush tax cuts AND cut spending (not either/or)'

"Our view on balancing the budget: To help control the deficit, let the Bush tax cuts expire." USA Today Editorial. July 21, 2010: "The best approach, though the least likely, would be to put aside the political maneuvering and do what is in the nation's long-term interest. That would be to let the tax cuts expire — first for the wealthy and more gradually for everyone else — then couple that move with large-scale spending cuts in a two-pronged attack on the deficit."
Bush tax cuts have been a huge success; extend them

Peter Morici. "Extend Bush Tax Cuts for All." The Street. July 27th, 2010: "The Bush tax cuts were a huge success. Failing to extend those for all Americans -- not just families earning less than $250,000 -- would be a terrible mistake. Contrary to the propaganda coming out of the White House and the Treasury, George Bush achieved a lot of growth the first seven years of his presidency by deregulating the economy and cutting taxes."
Expiring Bush tax cuts for wealthy will cut billions from deficit

Paul Krugman. "Now that's rich." New York Times. August 22, 2010: "What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments."
Extending Bush tax cuts for the rich only benefits top 1%

Paul Krugman. "Now that's rich." New York Times. August 22, 2010: "And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade."