Federal aid to private companies is unconstitutional in the United States.

ROAD MAP : DEFINITIONS FRAMEWORK NC AC DEFINITIONS: This is clearly where the debate comes down to. Reasons why you can't accept the AFF definition of federal aid. 1. ) the AFF constructed this definition, the NEG definition is cited legitimately and quoted verbatim. (if the link didn't work R1 here it is again . http://www.reference.com...) 2. ) the Affirmative cherry picks what they want and do not want within their definition. For example, the AFF gives a definition of help, for federal aid is a noun. I do not dispute that federal aid used in this context is a noun, as I am quite familiar with the syntax of the English language. however the AFF abusively construes the segment of this definition which states "to give or provide what is necessary to accomplish a task or satisfy a need. " making it out to mean only "giving money" to these companies. however, if the goal or task that needs to be accomplished is the stimulation of small businesses, then tax breaks, tax holidays ect. are all means of which the government uses to do such a thing. (Look at the bush stimulus in 01 and 08 both including tax breaks for small businesses and businesses alike. ) thus, using the AFFIRMATIVES DEFINITION OF HELP the federal government can create policy, write legislation and create programs to "provide what is necessary to accomplish" their goals. 3. ) the NEG definition clearly satisfies what is prescribed by the parameters of that term, as it states: "In the United States of America, Federal assistance, also known as federal aid, federal benefits, or federal funds, is defined as any federal program, project, service, and activity provided by the U. S. federal government that directly assists or benefits the American public. " thus, it is the more preferable of the two. FRAMEWORK: AFF concedes framework thus if the NEG can show one example where the federal government can provide aid to private companies. NC or CON: 1. AFF SAYS: By the definitions above, federal regulations are irrelevant, because they are not 'Federal aid'. RESPONSE: what I was stating, is that the Affirmative claims that an aspect of general welfare is consumer protection, in order to establish and uphold consumer protection, the government can give aid to companies in a variety of ways. First, feds can provide incentives to businesses like tax breaks, tax incentives (Both are aid given by the parameters of the definition of federal aid given by the NEG) for protecting the environment, use certain types of products, recycling and so forth. additionally, federal companies can give subsidies to these companies to "keep prices bearable" when times are rough, I was not advocating a price regulation in any way. AFF SAYS: Consumer protection is not 'Federal aid to private companies'. RESPONSE: I have already shown how protecting consumers can involve giving federal aid, and is validated by the elastic clause in the constitution. the federal government is acting by whatever means necessary to make sure that they are providing for the general welfare of the state. AFF SAYS:"To temporarily prop up a corporate entity with federal funds would hurt the whole, as they are either taxed involuntarily to prop this company up or their currency is inflated. This hurts the 'whole' of society while giving benefits to only a few million people, or about 1% of the population. " RESPONSE: first, we can see the collapse of just one private sector can be detrimental to the economy as a whole, especially when that sector resides in a sea of other sectors that are predominately privatized. this creates what we like to call a domino effect, as other sectors that were reliant on the one which collapsed, are hurt as a result. Look at what happened with the housing market, it was severely damaged because of the sub prime lending garbage that was going on. now it lies terribly inflated, and almost all sectors of our economy suffer because of it. this affects everyone when this domino effect occurs. Thus, there may be times where the federal government may need to act on the behalf of the common good for their welfare as justified by the necessary and proper clause AFF SAYS: When a company falls, it files for bankruptcy and its assets are sold into the rest of the market, allowing for this market to grow and develop in a more profitable way than it would have with the unprofitable existence of the former company. RESPONSE: a distinction must now be made. I am in no way advocating that this is the most effective manner in which a government may stimulate or facilitate it's economy, especially one focused upon free market Keynesian economics like our own. however, the effectiveness of the method is not what I am here to debate. I am here to debate the legality of such a movement by the federal government. since economics is quite reasonably unpredictable the federal government may perceive giving aid to these companies to be for the General welfare as the public. thus they use the necessary and proper clause to do so. CON 1 A. all attacks made against this argument rely upon the premise that my opponent has won the definition debate. hopefully by now you have seen why the AFF def is abusive and illegitimate, and why my definition satisfies the parameters of that term. CON 1B AFF SAYS:Such a thing (collapse of an economy) has never happened in history and will never happen. My opponent has made an alarmist claim. RESPONSE: although the possibility is slim it remains real, but furthermore, we are already seeing the effects of a slumping economy effecting the general welfare of citizens. CON 1C the necessary and proper clause goes grievously uncontested by my opponent throughout the round, and translates to be perhaps the biggest reason of why you should vote NEG today, for it justifies any action by the federal government to help carry out the responsibilities of the constitution. federal aid can most certainly be one of the means by which the USFG preserves the general welfare. My opponent rests his case upon two mistaken arguments: first, that he has won the definition debate; and second, that my case is not relevant to this debate. if you have even been lightly reading this debate, it should be relatively easy to concluded that both of these arguments are unfounded and unwarranted. insofar as the NEG has fufilled the burden, and all aff ground is lost, you must negate.