Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: 2009 US economic stimulus

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 01:55, 9 February 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Con)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 02:00, 9 February 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Write Subquestion here...)
Next diff →
Line 70: Line 70:
|- |-
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Con" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Con" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"|
-===Write Subquestion here...===+===Pro/con sources===
|- |-
Line 88: Line 88:
====Con==== ====Con====
-''Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here''+*[http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWE0OGQyMzNiMjg4MGNkZDc1N2I1NzlkMzY2YTQ2NDE= David Freddoso. "The Case for No Stimulus". National Review. February 3, 2009]
- +
- +
- +
- +

Revision as of 02:00, 9 February 2009

Write debate main question here...

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Write Subquestion here...

Pro

  • "Pumping Life Back into the U.S. Economy: Why a Stimulus Package Must Be Big and Targeted."


Con

  • Spending and borrowing got US into crisis, won't get it out. Andrew Schiff, an investment consultant at Euro Pacific Capital said to Politico: "All this stimulus money is geared toward getting consumers spending and borrowing again. But spending and borrowing were the problem in the first place."[1]


Write Subquestion here...

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





Pro/con sources

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





Con



References:

Related pages on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.