Young Conservative needs help in Liberal-Dominated History Class

self | May 8, 2003 | myself

[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.

[Zebra]

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.

[Jean S]

See #35.

[Zebra]

Roger that.

[aynrandfreak]

Call me paranoid, but you almost seem to write like a grown-up liberal acting like a conservative kid.

[stylin19a]

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 ?

[swany]

Question. Don't Republicans claim credit for this balanced budget? Are they not also responsible for raiding Soc. Sec. to keep it balanced?

[OOPisforLiberals]

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)

[stylin19a]

Yeppers...u got it ! Repubs took "credit" for "surpluses" because they passed the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.

[Swiss]

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.

[swany]

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.

[rwfromkansas]

I don't really know enough to help. Try Google.

Also, try to capitalize, as the old folgies on this forum will chew you out for things like that....lol.

[rwfromkansas]

I told you about the capital letter harrassment....:)

[rwfromkansas]

Amen. I have done it multiple times here on FR and the help has been tremendous.

I have never relied completely on what was given on here as well, but used it as a jumping off point for research elsewhere. I also tried to verify what people on here claimed.

It is a great way to get ideas and in no way do I consider it unethical to have people discuss a topic.

This poster just wants to do well in front of his classmates and is not asking us to do it all. But for folks like Jean, it is "laziness" to even try to get some Freeper help.

Nonsense.

[rwfromkansas]

From personal experience, a lot of times I try a google search and come up dry, so I try FR and sure enough, that provides the necessary help to give me a good idea of the subject from a conservative perspective especially. Then, I can go back to a search engine and get more info.

[rwfromkansas]

Great post. :)

[rwfromkansas]

There is a similar writing style on this person's profile page. I highly doubt some liberal disruptor would go to the trouble of making up a whole identity.

[Krodg]

This must be a joke....right?? No one would ever dream of posting here and getting any respones that made any sense.

[chuckles]

Just a few months before Newt and the boys took over Congress, Klintoon was projecting deficits( or daffasets, as a southern Senator used to say), as far as the eye could see. When Newt came in power with the "Contract for America", he concentrated on cutting spending level "INCREASES",(not cuts). One way to talk to the class so they may fathom what you say is to tell them "Government is in competition with the citizens for money. The engine of wealth in capitalism is production. Government produces NOTHING! It takes. Even the payments it makes to people, 1/3 or more stays in Washington as "overhead". When government gets too big, the people suffer a huge load to carry because they are the producers and they must produce for the economy AND government. When the people get behind(reccession), the best and quickest fix is for the government to give back some of their confiscated money. Another fix would be to quit asking for so much and cut the size of their thefts. If the libs start to whine about calling it thievery, then say "OK, we'll start living on voluntary taxes starting tommorrow.

America didn't have a surplus during Clinton's occupation of America. He raised taxes, which actually slowed the economy, but the congress cut the rate of government growth more than anytime in history which offset his tax hike. Another factor was Clinton passed(didn't veto) NAFTA and GATT. I have problems with NAFTA & GATT, but no one can deny it increased trade tremendously. Another factor was the tech boom. The computer was the hula hoop of the '90's. Everybody had to have one, and many idustries grew up around that one fact.

A previous poster has already given you your best ammo. Ask them what Clinton policy gave us the so called surplus? If they say "Raising Taxes!" Ask them to quote an economist that says raising taxes stimulates the economy? There is none! Even the most liberal admit it drags on the economy. Another point would be raising taxes on something discourages that activity, and a cut causes more of that activity. If you raise taxes on making money, what is the incintive for working that 2nd job, maybe working a little overtime? You work less, you pay less to the gubmint. Lowering taxes, OTOH, gives people an incintive to produce more and BTW, pay more taxes at the reduced rate, to stimulate the economy. Another example would be extending unemployment bennies. When they are extended, guess what, you have more unemployment for a longer period. It's just human nature.

One more point. When they come at you about taxing the "rich", ask them if a poor man will ever give them a job? It is people with money that make capitalism happen in a capitalist country. For that matter it's the rich that make things happen in communist countries. Thats why not much happens there.(BTW, there are rich in commie countries, they are called "party leaders").

[Dianna]

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.

I'm going to piggy back on your question... Mario Cuomo said to Neil Cavuto that Reagan raised taxes 6 times while in office. Cavuto's response was that Reagan didn't raise marginal rates (seeming to legitimize the idea that Reagan raised taxes). Anyone know what kind of taxes these were?

[chance33_98]

Some advise off the top of my head: start your sentences with capital letters.

Advice