Government bailouts were compared to everything from grades to firemen in the "Government Bailouts Impoverish a Nation" debate.
Schreyer Honors College, in conjunction with the Presidential Leadership Academy, hosted an Oxford-style debate Thursday evening in HUB-Alumni Hall.
The "for" side of the debate was represented by Dr. Russell Chuderewicz, senior lecturer in the department of economics, Christopher Randby (sophomore-advertising) a student in the Presidential Leadership Academy and Kaitlin Farnan (junior-history and international politics) an honors scholar. Barry Ickes, professor of economics, Noah Simmons (sophomore-computer science and political science) an honors scholar, and Brenna Thorpe (sophomore-public relations, communication arts and political science) an honors scholar, represented the "against" side.
Chuderewicz kicked off the debate by making a joke about "Senator Homer Simpson" and his government bailout plan of "Dough for Dociles," poking fun at Cash for Clunkers.
He also used the example of a classroom environment to explain why bailouts don't work. If the average for an exam in a class is 50 percent, Chuderewicz argued that giving all of the students
25 extra points to raise the average would only hurt all of them.
He argued the students with As would be encouraged to study less and those with Cs would continue to not study.
"If the average is a C next week, don't expect a bailout from me because bailouts impoverish a nation," Chuderewicz said.
When Thorpe had her turn at the microphone, she poked a hole in Chuderewicz's grade analogy.
"One student who gets a 50 percent in class will not affect the other students, however, if a company goes under, it affects all of its employees," said Thorpe.
Ickes argued next, citing numbers and facts to show that bailouts help a nation.
"Financial bailouts were designed to prevent a collapse," Ickes said.
Ickes used the example that if there were no firemen or ambulances, everyone would drive at 25mph and would have water hydrants in their homes.
Before the event, attendees were handed a paper to fill out, saying whether they were for or against the debate topic. At the beginning, 36 people agreed that bailouts impoverish a nation,
17 disagreed and 39 were undecided. By the end of the night, 38 were in favor of the argument, 45 were against it, and 5 were undecided.
