Pick your own debate 3!

Again, I will try to be blunt and to the point. Overall, I would say that my opponent's last round rebuttals tended to be either the result of clever wordplay, or a missed important detail. 1. My opponent said that since everyone was calling it a stimulus plan, and since the President was in a rush, then we should judge the Stimulus plan as a failure because it hasn't worked yet. When a patient shows up with a disease, we want to treat it right away. However, the recovery period may be months. My opponent has simply shown that there was an urgency in getting the plan passed so that the problem could START to be solved, but my opponent did not show that there was any intention that the actual recovery be immediate. 2. My opponent and I seem to be at odds. Bad legislation would be legislation that is not efficient or effective in accomplishing its stated purpose. The official stated purpose is in the actual legislation. See the "Statement of purpose". Now, supporters of the bill can say whatever they want. I support the bill, if I claim that it can grow wings and fly away, does it make it bad legislation? No. It is completely absurd for my opponent to say that legislation is bad simply because it doesn't do what OTHER people say it will do. The bill itself states its intentions, and this is the only objective thing we can go by. It is good legislation because it tells us what it is going to do, and it does it. Plain and simple. 3. My opponent says that my claim that the Act states no immediacy in the stimulus is false and provides a source. Let me point out that my opponent's points 1,2, and 3 only complain about time. He has provided no evidence that shows that there was a lack of prudent management. I argue that the delay in expenditure is essentially due to the fact that they do not deem it prudent to throw money at things as quickly as possible. My opponent's entire point hinges on the notion that faster is better, and his entire notion that faster is better comes from his assumption that speed is stated in the Act, when in reality, no such thing is stated in the act! It is stated "speed, but with prudent management". Thus, my opponent's point is nothing but a chain that goes all the way to an incorrect assumption, leading the entire chain to fall apart. Furthermore, he has made a blanket statement that the points 5 and 7 demonstrate imprudent management, yet, he has no argument for that. 4. Union wages. Guess who the lowest priced bidder was? Unless you expect random minimum wage workers or illegal immigrants to auction themselves off on the floor of Congress in the manner of the slaves of the south, you can expect a union of workers to win the bid. 5. And how do you propose to teach students with poor facilities, no administration, and no teachers since no one will teach without pension? Schools have little enough money as is but it is the biggest target for cuts since it only affects the future. Short-sighted people need some restrictions in order to think a little harder on how to not solve problems the easy way. 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. 7. Let's take a look at the article. Of the $787B, the article complained about $3B in non-green technology, $144B allotted to state governments discretion. The rest of the things my opponent talked about made up less than a fraction of 1 percent of that $787B. Who is my opponent trying to fool? The $3B in non-green technology sets up long term research jobs and the $144B is heavily restricted in its usage, according to the site. So really, my opponent's complaints are meaningless except for the $144B in discretionary state money. Even if we assume (as I believe my opponent wants us to) that state governments are 100% corrupt, only 20% of the Stimulus money would have been gone. However, this is absurd. A more reasonable statement would be that 10% of state money is wasted, leaving approximately 95% of the entire stimulus bill to be toward useful means. And $100B to small businesses? The bill did one better. How about $275B in tax cuts or every employee in America? And the further tax cuts that will come from the $145B in state spending? Not enough? Every penny left goes to works that in some way, eases the pocket of the generation now and the generation to come. I feel that the package was good legislation, it's just that my opponent is far too preoccupied with the here and now to realize that the plan is made for the long haul.