Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Young Conservative needs help in Liberal-Dominated History Class
self | May 8, 2003 | myself

Posted on 05/08/2003 6:45:23 PM PDT by swaimh

as we approach the end of the year in history class, we have geared up for a series of debates. my topics to debate are the situation with north korea and supply-side economics (which is what conservatives stand for).

north korea is a big mess, i know that.

the economics thing is weird though. i have made the following points: -deficit spending is healthy for the economy in that it allows the US to fund programs outside the restrictions of the budget (which allowed us to defeat the USSR in the Cold War). -Bush is not responsible for the economy: the economy follows a cycle, and the signs of a slowing economy were evident in the last years of the clinton administration.

i need more info to base my arguements on. one of my ultra-liberal classmates said that clinton had a surplus. i'm not sure of this, and with AP exams tomorrow, i have no time to research for myself.

anything would be appreciated. any links, info, or just opinions. i would like for just one opportunity to let loose and show them why they're really wrong and snap them back to reality.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

1 posted on 05/08/2003 6:45:23 PM PDT by swaimh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: swaimh
i need more info to base my arguements on. one of my ultra-liberal classmates said that clinton had a surplus. i'm not sure of this, and with AP exams tomorrow, i have no time to research for myself.

We're not here to help you with your homework. You'll do best in life if you do your own research and don't depend on others to help you.
Good luck.

2 posted on 05/08/2003 6:49:17 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
i'm only asking for info off the top of your head. i didn't mean to sound like i didn't want to do my own research, i'd love to. i'm really only interested in people's opinions about this.

thanks anyway
3 posted on 05/08/2003 6:52:29 PM PDT by swaimh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
I'm no expert but maybe I can contribute something.

Congressional budgets are contemplated using a 10 year projection. Before the Republican coongressional victories in 1994 the Klinton admin was projecting 2 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. The surpluses were only such when exluding off-the-books budget items. The so-called surpluses were a result of the the Republican takeover. The dollar is a fiat currency and an instrument of debt. WIthout a national debt the fed could not print dollars. So if there was no debt then there would be no currency. The economy does not turn on a dime. I think it is sade to safe that it is generally accepted that the economy lags current condition by at least 1-2 years. THese aren't too specific but I'm just trying to help a little.
4 posted on 05/08/2003 6:54:10 PM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Jarhead
sorry for all the misspellings etc..
5 posted on 05/08/2003 6:55:16 PM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
I assume you're graduating soon?
Some advise off the top of my head: start your sentences with capital letters.
6 posted on 05/08/2003 6:56:02 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
If you look at the fiscal policies of the US since WWII, we have followed a modified Keynesian approach. It calls for budget deficits during a recession. It also calls for a balanced budget in an expansion. Tax cuts and budget deficits are exactly what is called for. Bush is right on the money (no pun intended)to get this economy moving again.
7 posted on 05/08/2003 6:58:29 PM PDT by mrfixit514
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
"-deficit spending is healthy for the economy in that it allows the US to fund programs outside the restrictions of the budget"

I take it you have not read widely in economics.

Suggestions: Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.

--Boris

8 posted on 05/08/2003 7:01:12 PM PDT by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
one of my ultra-liberal classmates said that clinton had a surplus.

it means that xxxlinton taxed too much money from the American people... if he doesn't understand that, then say xxxlinton "took" too much money from the American people ... if he is happy with that then tell him he is welcome to give extra in taxes every year but to leave your income alone

9 posted on 05/08/2003 7:01:46 PM PDT by InvisibleChurch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
It's only based on things I've heard.
10 posted on 05/08/2003 7:01:59 PM PDT by swaimh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
The GOP class of 1994 is what was responsible for the budget surplus. It took them 3 runs by Clinton to get it signed. Clinton said it would ruin the economy. The 'genius' Robert Rubin said it couldn't be done in 6 years like the GOP insisted on. Clinton and Rubin A) said it couldn't be done, then B) they said it might be doable in 10 years, but not 6, then C) The Republican congress INSISTED that it be signed and, finally it was. As it turns out, the budget went into the black in 4 YEARS!!!!

The Democrates took as a matter of dogma that 'you cant just outgrow deficits, you must raise taxes'. The GOP said 'of course you can grow the economy enough thru lower taxes (supply side economics) to raise enug taxes thru high economic growth alone to outrun deficits. IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AS WE SAID IT WOULD!!!

The only good thing about deficits is that deficits RESTRICT THE FURTHER GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT because not even a die-hard Lib will think up new social programs if the deficit is too big.

That being said, the government is too big, but the US Economy is so HUGE ($11 Trillion) that a 'measely' $3-400 billion dollar deficit is small (2-3%) by comparison.

As Milton Friedman has said, and I paraphrase 'the worst thing about big government is not necessarily the spending alone, it is the encroachment of government into the freedoms of its citizens'.

Hope this helps.

11 posted on 05/08/2003 7:03:11 PM PDT by keithtoo (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS; swaimh
Jean,

Drop your self-righteous attitude

Swaimh,

go pick up a book called, "the way the world works" by Jude Wanniski. The guy coined supply side economics
12 posted on 05/08/2003 7:03:16 PM PDT by Norse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JeanS; swaimh
You'll do best in life if you do your own research and don't depend on others to help you.

Personally, I'd consider posting queries on an internet forum to be a legitimate form of research.

Just my $0.02.

13 posted on 05/08/2003 7:04:42 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
"one of my ultra-liberal classmates said that clinton had a surplus"

First, there never was a true surplus. Go to the Treasury website and find the talley for the national debt. Notice that it continued to increase during the Clinton years. The national debt was absorbed by Social Security. Next, recall that the congress was swept by Republicans in 1994. Go to Bigcharts.com and notice that the stock market really started to take off after that. The "surplus" had a lot to do with the lower capital gains taxes that astute people used to sell low basis stock while Republicans were in power and the on-fire Reagan/Republican economy that generated larger income tax revenues. Finally, look deep inside yourself and ask the question: Why doesn't anyone who nags about the deficit nag about spending? They only nag about taxes. Why?

14 posted on 05/08/2003 7:08:56 PM PDT by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
Congress controls the purse strings ultimately.

Klintoon had the benefit of an unprecedented economic boom to preside over and the advantage of an economy already on the rebound when he first took office.

W has the fiscal disadvantage of a relatively neverending war and an economy tanking when he took office. That economy is still "recovering" and settling out from all the exuberance and speculation. There is plenty of capital out there, folks just don't yet know where to invest with any certainty.

North Korea will require a complete overhaul and lacks any past experience with unbridled capitalism even on the small scale that post WWII Japan had from the ealy 1900s.

Best bet for North Korea is a merger ala East and West Germany with the South. South Korea knows capitalism about as well as anyone...though it borders on out and out cronyism.

How to get North Korea and South Korea back together is the question. War or a collapse from within.

The key is not us but China. Without China, North Korea implodes.

Free Market economics are always 80-90% supply side except in wartime.

My nutshell...good luck.
15 posted on 05/08/2003 7:10:17 PM PDT by wardaddy (My dog turned to me and he said " Let's head back to Tennessee Jed!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
I'm not an economist AT ALL...but consider the following....put your classmates on the defensive....

Ask your classmates "do your parents have mortgages on their homes?" "Any loans for cars?" (They'll likely say "yes.") Well, why? Answer: Because it's good to use OTHER people's money to build assets and wealth when NECESSARY.

Ask your classmates what percent of the current budget is the deficit (I think that's the right terminology.) Fact is its smaller than at most other times in history.

Ask your classmates if they have student loans? Why? Why didn't they pay for their education up front?

Ask your classmates if they would rather their girlfriends, mothers and future daughters wear burqua's? Sometimes you HAVE TO FUND something for the FUTURE...and that's what the US government does when it needs to.

Hope you're getting the idea.

Good luck.....and keep asking questions.
16 posted on 05/08/2003 7:10:36 PM PDT by goodnesswins (He (or she) who pays the bills, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swaimh

17 posted on 05/08/2003 7:10:42 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
HUH....go have a drink....were you never 17 and in college? (NO, I didn't think so.) Free Republic is one of the BEST places for Research.
18 posted on 05/08/2003 7:13:25 PM PDT by goodnesswins (He (or she) who pays the bills, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: boris
"I take it you have not read widely in economics"

Well I have and still do. The myth of evil deficit spending is just that - a myth.

19 posted on 05/08/2003 7:15:24 PM PDT by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
Surplus: A term used to describe money stolen from the wallets of tax payers that has not yet been spent on wasteful and addictive government programs after most of it is siphoned off by the massive bureaucracy. Syn: Filthy lucre.
20 posted on 05/08/2003 7:17:11 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
"Surplus: A term used to describe money stolen from the wallets of tax payers that has not yet been spent on wasteful and addictive government programs after most of it is siphoned off by the massive bureaucracy. Syn: Filthy lucre."

An astute observation. A surplus is illegal confiscation.

21 posted on 05/08/2003 7:19:20 PM PDT by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
I don't know how to post a link, or I'd make this real easy, but go to google and type in "Laffer economics" and it will bring up a ton of good sites.

Art Laffer is considered to be The Father of Supply Side economics, and introduced the concepts to JFK as a young guy in his twenties.

As good as it works, one of the downsides is that it takes quite a while, as much as several years, to kick in to the point where revenues to the treasury increase, and hence "the Clinton Economy," brought to you by George H.W. Bush #41, and his push to lower interest rates during the latter part of his term.

As an aside, other than raising taxes, what WAS #42's economic policy? None. He did nothing. No economic policies were proposed or enacted. Not that I can remember, anyway. So if someone says, "Clinton is SO great with the economy, ask them to name one economic policy. There aren't any. He just kicked back, stayed out of the way and partied.
22 posted on 05/08/2003 7:19:50 PM PDT by oprahstheantichrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
what an ass.
23 posted on 05/08/2003 7:22:19 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace ((the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: oprahstheantichrist
"So if someone says, "Clinton is SO great with the economy, ask them to name one economic policy"

The perfect example of the absolute that a president cannot help the economy he can only get in the way.

24 posted on 05/08/2003 7:22:30 PM PDT by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; JeanS
Apparently research may only be conducted through the use of Encyclopedias and NYT articles...
25 posted on 05/08/2003 7:23:36 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace ((the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
"I assume you're graduating soon? Some advise off the top of my head: start your sentences with capital letters"

And while your giving "advise" you might want to use your spell checker.

26 posted on 05/08/2003 7:24:51 PM PDT by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
Well said.
27 posted on 05/08/2003 7:26:23 PM PDT by Lady Eileen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: groanup
Don't worry, the poster of this article already sent me a freepmail correcting my spelling.
28 posted on 05/08/2003 7:26:32 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: groanup
And while your giving "advise" you might want to use your spell checker

I know, you got me, your (you're) bwaaahahah!

29 posted on 05/08/2003 7:26:37 PM PDT by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
Lower Taxes: Lower taxes, when combined with more spending on only essential government programs, e.g., defense, etc., will force other addictive and ever growing government programs to go bankrupt. The resulting high deficit would then be used as the rationale for shrinking government in order to eliminate that deficit rather than raising taxes to do so and keeping a big government. This goal will take time to accomplish but it can never be realized if Liberals are in control.
30 posted on 05/08/2003 7:26:43 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
-deficit spending is healthy for the economy in that it allows the US to fund programs outside the restrictions of the budget (which allowed us to defeat the USSR in the Cold War).

This does justify Reagan's choice to engage in deficit spending, but not Bush's. The situation today is not nearly the same as the situation then.

-Bush is not responsible for the economy: the economy follows a cycle, and the signs of a slowing economy were evident in the last years of the clinton administration.

The economy does not just cycle up and down. Just because it's down for a while doesn't mean it's going to bounce back up (there are plenty of countries with economies in the toilet). Bush is not 100% responsible for the current state of the economy, but the president plays a tremendous role in the long-term health of our economy. You absolutely can't claim that the president has little effect on the economy, that's ludicrous.

31 posted on 05/08/2003 7:27:14 PM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
"Don't worry, the poster of this article already sent me a freepmail correcting my spelling"

I hope he/she acknowledged punctuation.

32 posted on 05/08/2003 7:28:24 PM PDT by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
Hey Swaimh:

My advice to you, as a college professor myself, is study everything you can lay your hands on about Adam Smith, and ask respectful questions pointing out the strenghth of a system based on the free market and limited federal government.

Since I assume you are below 25, as a side benefit you'll make millions by the time your 40 or so by the extra insights Smith's teachings (he was a college prof also) will provide...
33 posted on 05/08/2003 7:31:46 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
Two points regarding the Clinton surplus.

(1) There was no surplus. The government takes all money and puts it into the general fund. This includes taxes collected to operate the government and "taxes" collected to maintain the social security trust fund. The government has been living off of money that was collected for social security for the past 30 years instead of the money collected for operating the government. The money from social security is "supposed" to be held for retirement. Since the social security trust fund is not growing, they are spending it and calling it surplus. It is not. So it is a word game.

Imagine you and your buddy (called Bill appropriately). Your mother gives you $10 and tells you to give it back to her later in the day. Bill gets a $5 from his job and decides to take you both to lunch. Because the cost of the meal is greater than the $5 Bill has, he takes your $10, calls it the general fund, and buys you and him lunch for $14. When your Mom returns to get her $10, he says, it's not his problem because when he was in charge, there was a surplus. (2) The single measurement of surplus by itself is a silly notion. Republicans receive the economy when it is shrinking and pass it back growing. Democrats receive an economy that is growing and hand it back shrinking. Which is better? I would take growing any time. Imagine trying to go to Grandma's house. You can be in a car that is going 50 MPH but it is slowing down. Or, you can be in a car that is going 48 MPH and is speeding up. Which gets to Grandma's house sooner.

The President's objective in cutting taxes is to get the car (economy) accelerating. The Democrats want to stop the car so they can take over the driver's seat.

Finally, remember the Clinton pretend surplus is really just a slogan. We were told there was a surplus but was there really?

Then if it was me, I would go into a rant:

Unilaterial means by yourself which means no Britain, no Italy, No Poland, No Spain .... except when the Left defines what Unilateral means.

First Pre-emptive strike means this is the first time you have ever attacked first. But, Haiti never attacked us. Kosovo never attacked us, Bosnia never attacked. So First Pre-emptive strike doesn't mean what it means.

Peace doesn't mean the absence of war ..... Unless the Left is defining it.

Shall not be infringed means the government can't pass any laws no matter how bad they want to .... unless the Left defines it.

When I give you more money than I gave you last year, you did not get a cut .... unless the Left defines it.

A white man from Arkansas cannot be the first Black President ... unless the Left defines it.

Is just means is .... unless the Left defines it.

What for the magic words that they have given implied meanings. In a debate, that is where you challenge them.

Finally, as stated above, you MUST do your homework if you want to succeed. But, you have one benefit they do not. You are right (correct) and they are not. The rest just takes dilligence and patience to carry the day. Don't back down when the going gets difficult (and they will use any tact to carry their point because they know it is flawed as well but they are stuck with it).

Good Luck.
34 posted on 05/08/2003 7:36:23 PM PDT by Joe_October (It's the Slogans .... Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: groanup
I had a short conversation with the poster in freepmail. I was rude and I'm old enough to know better.
He's just a kid! Shame on me.
35 posted on 05/08/2003 7:36:57 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
i need more info to base my arguements on. one of my ultra-liberal classmates
said that clinton had a surplus.


In the last week or so, the people running the remains of Enron have
requested a refund of the taxes Enron paid to the IRS/US Treasury on
PROFITS THAT ENRON CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR.

I suspect that if all the similar fraudulent operations from those Golden Years of
Clinton's Bubble Economy did the same, that surplus would shrink quite substantially.

Oh, and the current deficit...would it have happened if Clinton had zipped up
for a few minutes and said "Sure, we'll take this Osama bin Laden guy off
your hands" the couple of times foreign powers offered the guy up to us.

I suspect that if those Twin Towers were still standing and the Pentagon hadn't needed
a substantial rebuild...the budget would be substantially better...
36 posted on 05/08/2003 7:38:45 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
When Clinton was elected in 1992, the economy had already begun its recovery from the Bush I recession. Clinton benefitted from the lag-time of the previous administration's economic policies producing tangible results.

In 1993, one of the first things Clinton did was to pass the largest tax increase in American history. That increase included raising the dollar-amount of Social Security earnings which could be taxed from 50% to 85% of a retired person's earnings. Right away the elderly, and all of us, began paying more of our income to Big Brother.

Over the course of his two terms, Clinton raised taxes, increased spending, and "cooked the books" to make the economic situation appear better than it actually was. His lying, corruption, and slickness encouraged (by example) some people in business (ie. Enron, Global Crossing, etc.)to do the same. For a while, they got away with it.

But by 2000, the country was in an economic recession, brought on by the economic policies of "tax-and-spend" and copying the corruption of a thoroughly corrupt individual.

Upon his election in 2000, President George W. Bush inherited the economic recession and general mess that his predecessor had left him.

37 posted on 05/08/2003 7:38:51 PM PDT by Prov3456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
my apologies... i meant to say that Bush is not responsible for the economic situation when he took office or the current situation (at least not yet in my mind). i didn't do a lot of proofreading before i posted this.
38 posted on 05/08/2003 7:39:51 PM PDT by swaimh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
I have a degree in history; tell the teacher to suck your...NO, I'm just kidding. BE AS TOUGH AS NAILS, give the libs stress in that class. Bring up Reagan, bring up Ayn Rand, bring up Colin Powell(he is untouchable by the left), and dog on Clinton. Be relentless, do not let up.
39 posted on 05/08/2003 7:41:08 PM PDT by Porterville (Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
"Bush is not 100% responsible for the current state of the economy, but the president plays a tremendous role in the long-term health of our economy. You absolutely can't claim that the president has little effect on the economy, that's ludicrous."

The president can only have a negative effect on the economy. Period. If the economy does well during his presidency it is certainly not because of any presidential policy. Bill Clinton was the luckiest president of the 20th century economically. He was the benefactor of policies of the Reagan '80's that essentially took government out of the economy. It just so happened that the tech revolution ramped production and effiecincy up to an unprecedented level. We had an economic boom without inflation. That was because of the efficiency of the new tech economy. Wal-Mart, for example, had electronic inventory control. When you bought a roll of toilet paper the scanner told the inventory computer and the inventory computer automatically ordered more. NEVER BEFORE has the world seen that kind of productivity and efficiency.

40 posted on 05/08/2003 7:43:28 PM PDT by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
I assume you're graduating soon? Some advise off the top of my head: start your sentences with capital letters.

Ummm, the word is advice, Jean. I assume you're not graduating soon.

41 posted on 05/08/2003 7:46:39 PM PDT by Zebra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zebra
See #35.
42 posted on 05/08/2003 7:47:34 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Roger that.
43 posted on 05/08/2003 7:48:54 PM PDT by Zebra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
Call me paranoid, but you almost seem to write like a grown-up liberal acting like a conservative kid.
44 posted on 05/08/2003 7:54:29 PM PDT by aynrandfreak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
Budget surpluses are smoke & mirrors/voodoo economics.

February 2, 1998

CONTACT: Jamie Ridge (202-467-6222)

BORROWING SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS FOR OTHER
SPENDING ALLOWS CLAIM OF "BALANCED BUDGET" BY 1999 WASHINGTON -- The Concord Coalition today disputed claims that there will be a federal budget surplus by 1999, pointing out that the projected surplus is only reached by borrowing Social Security's annual surplus revenue to fund other government programs.

While today's projections from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) predict a budget "surplus" of $9.5 billion by 1999 under the Clinton administration's latest budget plan, that surplus is possible only by borrowing Social Security's surplus of $105 billion in that year.

Without borrowing the Social Security surplus, OMB does not project that balance will be reached within the budget's five-year planning window. For the year 2003, the OMB projects that the government's "on-budget" operating accounts will be $63 billion in the red. .......


Your checking account is empty. You owe $500. You clean out your $1000 savings account and move it into checking, leaving an IOU in it's place. Do you now have a $500 surplus ?
45 posted on 05/08/2003 8:41:51 PM PDT by stylin19a (2 wrongs don't make a right.....but 3 rights make a left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
Question. Don't Republicans claim credit for this balanced budget? Are they not also responsible for raiding Soc. Sec. to keep it balanced?
46 posted on 05/08/2003 8:55:19 PM PDT by swany
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: groanup
Something I'm curious about because I've never seen a conservative explanation of things is : the Reagan era is lauded as having a huge economic turbo boost. But anti-Reagan people always come back with the "giant debt" argument. What's the proper way to refute this? AFAIK, the debt post-Reagan was enormous. Surely its effects are still with us.

What's the official line on this? (I'm asking this out of pure curiosity - this isn't a troll)
47 posted on 05/08/2003 9:00:12 PM PDT by OOPisforLiberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: swany
Yeppers...u got it ! Repubs took "credit" for "surpluses" because they passed the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
48 posted on 05/08/2003 9:16:01 PM PDT by stylin19a (2 wrongs don't make a right.....but 3 rights make a left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: swaimh
Well there is those on here who will question if we had a surplus and who did it but lets say that in your debate you are forced to admit that Clinton did have a surplus. What then?

Just point out that for much of our history, recessions and depressions have followed the years we run federal budget surpluses. Not sure of the reasons but I for one will always plan for bad economic times when I hear Washington talk about surpluses.
49 posted on 05/08/2003 9:28:42 PM PDT by Swiss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
Swaims debating buddies are going to give credit to the dem administration for the balanced budget & surplusses, and then admonish Republicans for wanting to raid Social Security, though both sides are complicit. Clinton signed off on it knowing they were borrowing from SS.

Is there a good (truthful) argument for Republicans on this issue? Cutting spending on programs is the only way as I see it and I don't see either side doing that.
50 posted on 05/08/2003 9:37:38 PM PDT by swany
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson