Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: 2009 US economic stimulus
From Debatepedia
(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 03:20, 9 February 2009 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Pro) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 03:46, 9 February 2009 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Pro) Next diff → |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
*'''[[Argument: Large stimulus bill is needed for major problems| Large stimulus bill is needed for major problems]]''' [http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/06/a_large_stimulus_bill_for_large_problems/ Scot Lehigh. "A large stimulus bill for large problems". The Boston Globe. February 6, 2009] - "President Obama's call for a large stimulus plan is under assault by arguments as unpersuasive as they are uninformed. 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. You can trace the effects of the sharp economic contraction in frequent stories about massive layoffs. That leaves government spending as the nation's best hope for softening a major downturn. To address a projected loss of more than $2 trillion in economic activity, Congress is debating an overall stimulus package of $819 billion to $900 billion. Although those figures sound large, on a dollar-for-dollar basis they would plug less than half the growing hole in the economy. So the stimulus size is hardly excessive - and conservatives' calls for cutting it back make little sense." | *'''[[Argument: Large stimulus bill is needed for major problems| Large stimulus bill is needed for major problems]]''' [http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/06/a_large_stimulus_bill_for_large_problems/ Scot Lehigh. "A large stimulus bill for large problems". The Boston Globe. February 6, 2009] - "President Obama's call for a large stimulus plan is under assault by arguments as unpersuasive as they are uninformed. 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. You can trace the effects of the sharp economic contraction in frequent stories about massive layoffs. That leaves government spending as the nation's best hope for softening a major downturn. To address a projected loss of more than $2 trillion in economic activity, Congress is debating an overall stimulus package of $819 billion to $900 billion. Although those figures sound large, on a dollar-for-dollar basis they would plug less than half the growing hole in the economy. So the stimulus size is hardly excessive - and conservatives' calls for cutting it back make little sense." | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''Vast majority of US stimulus is good stimulus.''' 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." | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''Almost all government spending has a stimulus effect.''' [http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/06/a_large_stimulus_bill_for_large_problems/ Scot Lehigh. "A large stimulus bill for large problems". The Boston Globe. February 6, 2009] - "Although one can debate the necessity or importance of various projects, almost any new spending will have a stimulative effect - including resodding the National Mall." | ||
*"Pumping Life Back into the U.S. Economy: Why a Stimulus Package Must Be Big and Targeted." | *"Pumping Life Back into the U.S. Economy: Why a Stimulus Package Must Be Big and Targeted." |
Revision as of 03:46, 9 February 2009
Write debate main question here... |
|
Background and Context of Debate: |
Write Subquestion here... | |
Pro
|
Con
|
Write Subquestion here... | |
ProClick on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
ConClick on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
Pro/con sources | |
ProClick on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
Con
|
References: | |
Related pages on Debatepedia: | |
External links and resources: |