Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: US debt ceiling deal
From Debatepedia
(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 21:20, 3 August 2011 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Con) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 21:22, 3 August 2011 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Con) Next diff → |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
*'''Debt deal doesn't cut spending enough to solve deficit.''' [http://www.ksallink.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=18486&format=html Jerry Moran, Sen R-KS. "Debt deal not good for America." KSALLink.com. August 2nd, 2011]: "This plan may be considered a good deal in Washington, D.C., but it is not a good deal for the future of America. There are virtually no spending cuts in this bill – in fact, it only slows slightly the growth of spending. The amount of spending that is reduced is about $21 billion next year. Given the fact that we borrow $4 billion more each day than what we take in – those savings will disappear in less than a week. It’s unfortunate the country has been through this long drama about raising the debt ceiling and it’s even sadder that the accomplishments are so few.” | *'''Debt deal doesn't cut spending enough to solve deficit.''' [http://www.ksallink.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=18486&format=html Jerry Moran, Sen R-KS. "Debt deal not good for America." KSALLink.com. August 2nd, 2011]: "This plan may be considered a good deal in Washington, D.C., but it is not a good deal for the future of America. There are virtually no spending cuts in this bill – in fact, it only slows slightly the growth of spending. The amount of spending that is reduced is about $21 billion next year. Given the fact that we borrow $4 billion more each day than what we take in – those savings will disappear in less than a week. It’s unfortunate the country has been through this long drama about raising the debt ceiling and it’s even sadder that the accomplishments are so few.” | ||
- | *'''[[Argument: Debt deal cuts spending too early for recovery| Debt deal cuts spending too early for recovery]]''' [http://www.latimes.com/health/healthcare/la-fi-hiltzik-20110803,0,4502478.column Michael Hitzik. "Debt ceiling deal ignores real driver of deficits: healthcare costs." Los Angeles Times. August 2nd, 2011]: "The debt ceiling fight evaded the point that now is not the time to become preoccupied with limiting government spending, which is close to the only spending propping up a stagnant economy. It should not have escaped anyone's notice that the slowdown in the recovery reported last week, just as congressional pontificating kicked into high gear, coincided with the tailing off of government stimulus. Government layoffs are mounting, while private hiring hasn't materialized; the result is a sapping of consumer demand that will brake recovery even more." | + | *'''[[Argument: Debt deal cuts spending too early for recovery| Debt deal cuts spending too early for recovery]]''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?_r=1&hp Paul Krugman. "The President Surrenders." The New York Times. July 31st, 2011]: "Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond. The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record." |
*'''Deal is purely spending cuts when public wants mix.''' [http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Economist-Mom/2011/0803/Is-this-really-a-raw-deal-for-Democrats Diane Lim Rogers. "Is this really a raw deal for Democrats?" The Christian Science Monitor. August 3rd, 2011]: "It’s particularly notable that the deal is all spending cuts when public opinion clearly wanted a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. In just the most recent example of this fact, a July 18-20 CNN/ORC International poll showed that almost two-thirds of respondents preferred a deal with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Only 34% preferred a debt reduction plan based solely on spending reductions." | *'''Deal is purely spending cuts when public wants mix.''' [http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Economist-Mom/2011/0803/Is-this-really-a-raw-deal-for-Democrats Diane Lim Rogers. "Is this really a raw deal for Democrats?" The Christian Science Monitor. August 3rd, 2011]: "It’s particularly notable that the deal is all spending cuts when public opinion clearly wanted a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. In just the most recent example of this fact, a July 18-20 CNN/ORC International poll showed that almost two-thirds of respondents preferred a deal with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Only 34% preferred a debt reduction plan based solely on spending reductions." |
Revision as of 21:22, 3 August 2011
Was it an acceptable deal? What are the pros and cons? |
Background and context |
Arguments | |
Pro
|
Con
|
Jobs: | |
Pro |
Con
|
Crisis averted? Did the deal avert a major crisis? | |
Pro |
Con
|
Pro/con sources | |
ProClick "edit" and write arguments here
|
Con |
External links |