Skip to comments.
Young Conservative needs help in Liberal-Dominated History Class
| May 8, 2003
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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
"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.
posted on 05/08/2003 7:19:20 PM PDT
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.
what an ass.
"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.
posted on 05/08/2003 7:22:30 PM PDT
To: Drew68; JeanS
Apparently research may only be conducted through the use of Encyclopedias and NYT articles...
"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.
posted on 05/08/2003 7:24:51 PM PDT
Don't worry, the poster of this article already sent me a freepmail correcting my spelling.
posted on 05/08/2003 7:26:32 PM PDT
by Jean S
And while your giving "advise" you might want to use your spell checker
I know, you got me, your (you're) bwaaahahah!
posted on 05/08/2003 7:26:37 PM PDT
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.
posted on 05/08/2003 7:26:43 PM PDT
-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.
posted on 05/08/2003 7:27:14 PM PDT
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
"Don't worry, the poster of this article already sent me a freepmail correcting my spelling"
I hope he/she acknowledged punctuation.
posted on 05/08/2003 7:28:24 PM PDT
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...
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).
posted on 05/08/2003 7:36:23 PM PDT
(It's the Slogans .... Stupid)
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.
posted on 05/08/2003 7:36:57 PM PDT
by Jean S
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...
posted on 05/08/2003 7:38:45 PM PDT
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.
posted on 05/08/2003 7:38:51 PM PDT
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.
posted on 05/08/2003 7:39:51 PM PDT
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.
posted on 05/08/2003 7:41:08 PM PDT
(Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
"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.
posted on 05/08/2003 7:43:28 PM PDT
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson