Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: 2009 US economic stimulus

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 02:05, 9 February 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Con)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 03:08, 9 February 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Con)
Next diff →
Line 35: Line 35:
====Con==== ====Con====
 +
 +*'''Stimulus bill contains too much non-stimulus spending.'''
*'''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."[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18068.html] *'''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."[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18068.html]

Revision as of 03:08, 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

  • Stimulus bill contains too much non-stimulus spending.
  • 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]
  • Borrowing money for stimulus will not help economy. David Freddoso. "The Case for No Stimulus". National Review. February 3, 2009 - "Every penny of such a package must be borrowed, because the government is already running a $1.2 trillion deficit this year and faces a $703 billion deficit for next year, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The question, then, is whether the government can help the economy by spending money if it can only do so by first sucking that money out of the economy."
  • Economic stimulus plan does not create any new demand. Brian Riedl, Heritage Foundation. "The Case for No Stimulus". National Review. February 3, 2009 - "That is a great question. The grand Keynesian myth is that you can spend money and thereby increase demand. And it’s a myth because Congress does not have a vault of money to distribute in the economy. Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. You’re not creating new demand, you’re just transferring it from one group of people to another. If Washington borrows the money from domestic lenders, then investment spending falls, dollar for dollar. If they borrow the money from foreigners, say from China, then net exports drop dollar for dollar, because the balance of payments must adjust. Therefore, again, there is no net increase in aggregate demand. It just means that one group of people has $800 billion less to spend, and the government has $800 billion more to spend."

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
.