Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: 2009 US economic stimulus

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 02:02, 9 February 2009; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

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]
  • 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."


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
.