Debate: 2009 US economic stimulus

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:_2009_US_economic_stimulus

After reading over 50 pro and con editorials and opinion pieces in this debate and breaking them down into roughly 25 pros and 25 con arguments on Debatepedia, I've concluded a couple of things. Government spending can work very effectively to boost an economy, assuming the appropriate managerial and supplemental steps are taken (transparency, efficiency, taking other steps to fight the liquidity crisis and mortgage crisis). So, let's assume, to keep all things equal, these steps will be taken. The reason why spending works is very clear. If you spend money on a major road project, for instance, you are paying a company to do the work (90% of work will be done by private sector), which means that a company must employ more people to perform the work, and more people that would have otherwise been unemployed will suddenly be employed, pay their bills, and spend in the economy. Almost ANY government project has a stimulus effect for this reason, while some spending has better effects than others. Shorter-term spending is generally better stimulus (although longer-term spending can have good sustaining-effects for a recovery), and most of the spending in the bill is short-term (within a year). And, 2/3 of the bill is spending vs. tax cuts. This is appropriate. Tax cuts are an OK stimulus, but not as good as spending DURING A RECESSION, simply because there is no assurance that people will spend the extra money they save through a tax cut (and saving or investing that money is not a great stimulus - although it does help liquidity). Spending programs ensure the money is injected into actual work - or, in other words, spending programs provide demand that was lacking before. For these general reasons, I support the legislation.

Some arguments that have little credibility: that the government can't simulate the economy...this really just does not stack up, largely for the simply logic described above, but also for historical reasons as well. The RIGHT government spending has worked countless times to inject capital into a market that is holding on too tight. Some say that you can't inject new capital into the economy without taking it out first in taxes or loans. Well, this is actually not how the stimulus works. The stimulus works by injecting money now (by borrowing or by printing it) and then repaying it later through taxes, yes, but only once the economy has recovered and new growth has essentially paid for the initial investment. The idea that you have to tax first to spend is oddly often stated, but is clearly wrong.

The last argument I'll touch on is the deficit. Deficits do matter. Balancing budgets is important. But, in a recession, fiscal conservatism is not a good idea. Balancing budgets during the good times is the rule of thumb. Balancing budgets during recession is a recipe for a continual tightening of spending, capital, and credit, and this can lead to bad, bad recessions.

Link to Debatepedia main page: http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia!

Charter schools? My biggest question is, is it possible for public schools to do everything that charter schools do (and which are laudable)? Can a traditional public school adopt creative incentive structures for students? Can a public school allow students to choose different programs within the school with different focuses (ie, arts, math, life lessons...)? Can a public school set specific binding goals for itself in its relationship to the state? Can public schools give teachers greater autonomy? From my perspective, the answer is, to an extent, yes. And, that's generally where I have difficulty with charter schools. It may not be entirely necessary to achieve the stated goals, and there are certain significant costs: charter schools create a two-tiered system that draws the "more qualified" students (and sometimes more affable) away from public schools, leaving public schools in the dust or under-attended and under-funded.

But I do like that charter schools can offer a great testing ground for new and innovative educational programs. I'm not sure public schools can be quite as radical and unconventional. But, maybe that's a good thing that students not be the testing grounds for radical methods.

Here's our article on the topic on Debatepedia:

Debate: Charter schools

Debate: Guantanamo Bay

We just "finished" our debate article on Guantanamo Bay and put it up on Debatepedia's Debate Digest. Check it out:

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:_Guantanamo_Bay#Yes

What compels me toward favoring closing Guantanamo, as Obama ordered on January 22nd, is that it refreshes America's image as a leader of the rule of law and its moral authority, which is important in its own right, but which also has meaning in rallying its allies around battling terrorism (because we are all taking the high ground and can justify our actions to our publics as such) and in diminishing the rallying case of terrorists (ie. that the US and the West are Big Bad bullies).

My opinion about the practicality of closing Guantanamo and the intel that might be lost is that these issues are not as significant as people make them out to be. Moving terrorists to the US for trial or returning them home will not be as difficult as people say (US courts and prisons can handle the influx of detainees). And, I don't see the national security gains as all that high from the info obtained there or from the preventiveness of detaining the individuals there. There are many reasons for this, but see them in our pro/con article. Enjoy.

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:_Guantanamo_Bay#Yes

The reasoning behind the Debatepedia blog

Why did I decide to create the Debatepedia blog? Debatepedia is a pro/con encyclopedia that breaks down public debates from around the world.

Here's the link: http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia!

It is an important resource and encyclopedia. Yet, it is just that, an encyclopedia. My intention with the Debatepedia blog is to offer greater analysis of a selection of important debate articles that myself and our community are working on, and, refreshingly, my own opinion. I think this will strengthen how we look at Debatepedia's comprehensive pro/con articles and how we all deliberate through these complicated public debates going on around us that we all need to deliberate through and often act on as citizens.