That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over next year.

"it is big enough did you not read my first con.1 I would like to see your evidence and i have some evidence of my own." You and I are talking about two different types of size here. You say its big enough because its 1% of our GDP. I say its not big enough because people are not getting enough money. I am not arguing its not big enough because its not a large enough share of our economy. I agree that 1% of our GDP can be big enough to help our economy, but if you take that 1% and distribute it over everyone then you break that hundreds of billions of dollars into tiny, insignificant amounts. Its a matter of where that 1% of our GDP in economic stimulus goes. The current policy spreads it around indiscriminately and so wastes the money. I did respond to your position, just because I make arguments that say you are wrong does not mean I ignored your argument, it means I disagree. You, on the other hand, completely ignored my arguments. If someone owes $200,000 on a house worth only $150,000 and just had one of their own bread-winners laid off, $1,200 dollars is not going to make any different in their financial situation. Moreover, your "evidence" is nothing but a series of warrantless quotes from authors of unknown credibility. Just because some staff writer for some newspaper says something does not in any way make it true. "People are going to spend as I said before they are giving it to the consumers that spend all their money middle class and lower class. The most likely to spend and Milton Friedman is mainly talking about the upper class, how don't spend. They can't save it anyway, they have bills to pay and food to get. They will spend and we had a similar situation in 2001, and according to my research in con.1 subpoint b I think, it shows it made a substantial stimulus. Meaning people spent it." There are two possible scenarios. Either things are as you say they are and people will spend the rebate because they have bills and food to buy or they will save the money as I argue. If the people who get the rebate have no choice to spend the money on bills and food, then they already sound in terrible financial straits and a one time check of a couple hundred dollars or so is not going to help them. If they are unable to afford their bills or even food then one time check will have no ability to alleviate that condition and the tax rebate will be utterly ineffective. If the situation is like I describe it, then the tax rebate will also be utterly ineffective. Either way, the tax rebate will not be effective in mitigating an economic downturn. Your assertion that Friedman was only talking about the rich is not only warrantless but completely wrong. It is the working class and the poor whose spending is most influenced by their future income because their financial situations are the most unstable. The rich can more or less keep up a steady and constant stream of spending because their financial situation is very stable and they can ride out any economic recession. If you live much closer to the poverty line then what you expect the future to bring becomes very important. If the economy is doing poorly and you worry about being laid off or getting a reduction in benefits then you will save as much as possible for that rainy day. If you think good times are ahead you will probably splurge and buy some of those nice things you have been denying yourself/been unable to get when times were harder. People plan ahead and make decisions in the present based on what they expect the future will bring, its human nature. As long as the tax rebate does nothing to improve people's expectations about their future incomes then it will be ineffective. "According to the I.R.S., the checks will be in the hands of the people in May. As far as it would take months, hey I have at least a year for them to do that, because 2/3 of the rebates will be spent in the first 6 months starting in May 2008." The IRS will start mailing the checks in May. That means that the small number of people who filled out their income taxes months ago will start seeing checks trickling in sometimes in May. Almost everyone files their taxes in April. That huge increase in the number of taxes being filed clogs up the system and it takes months to process all those returns. Most people wont be getting their checks until June, July, or August. You have to prove that the package will work with in the next year, meaning by March of next year. Even if a lot of checks start being mailed out in May, that is 2 months from now, meaning that you now have to prove that the stimulus package will be affective in 10 months. But since most people wont be getting their checks until the summer, that means you have to show that within 8 months of people getting their checks the economy will be improved. That just is not enough time for the package to take effect, whatever small one it will have. "All I have to prove is it will mitigate, meaning slow down" The resolution is that the economic stimulus act will successfully mitigate the economic down turn in th next year. You do not win simply by showing that there was some mitigation. If the government spends enough money its sure to have some effect. It has ti be successful mitigation. That means that the stimulus act has to meet the expectations/goals of those that advocated and passed it. And it has to do that in the next year. I have argued that it will not be nearly that successful and that it will not take affect within the next year, negating the resolution.