posted 05-01-99 10:36 PM ET            

Wow!!! Harsh. Did somebody finally find your secret weakness? I thought that it was impossible to ruffle that teflon teddy-bear fur.

Or, did someone steal your identity?

There...a whole bunch of smileys. Feel better now? I know it helps me. Let me help you with your sweatshirt...you know... your favorite... the one with the really long sleeves that tie in the back.

posted 05-01-99 11:23 PM ET            

The plain fact of the matter is that the middle class bears the biggest burden in America. We can't afford all of the lawyers and accountants who arrange tax dodges of the rich. And we don't qualify for the earned income tax credits or government subsidies of the poor.

One more thing: a lot of economists credit the current "Clinton" recovery to Reaganomics.

And how someone can advocate shooting him dead when he is almost dead now and suffering from Altzheimer's is beyond me.

posted 05-02-99 01:01 AM ET            

And Kennedy sucked. He is, IMNSHO, one of the Absolute Worst presidents of all time!

Reagan is one of the best! He ended the Cold War and lowered taxes on EVEYBODY!

And why the Hell is this in the game forum!

Shoot all opposed to Reagan!

posted 05-02-99 01:06 AM ET            

Your ignorance about what Reagan did in the early '80s is astonishing. Do you think for yourself or do you just parrot what your alleged history instructors tell you?

Fact of the matter is, supply side economics worked. Taxes were CUT across the board. Those who were willing to get off their a**** did alright.

And if anyone is getting shafted on taxes, it IS the upper income. Trust me, I see this every day. I work for the Franchise Tax Board in the state of California, and once your income crosses that 50k or so mark, you start getting screwed. Why the hell should they pay more? The top 5% income earners are shouldering around 25% of the tax burden. Seems to me they pay MORE than their fair share.

posted 05-02-99 02:01 AM ET            

It turns out that economic policies take a long time to take effect, probably a year or more.

posted 05-02-99 05:27 AM ET            

What? Bush's recession was in 1991, and that was caused by his raising taxes. Raising the taxes caused the aggregate demand curve to shift back, therefore resulting in unemployment due to his tight money policies. (Yes, I am an economics major ).

posted 05-02-99 05:49 AM ET            

Reagan did LOTS of great things for this country. He scared the bajeebahs out of LOTS of Anti-American nations and nationals. Cause he was just crazy enough to do something like order Libya be made into a glowing glass crater. His Star-Wars initiative was a stroke of international political genius, and has led to many interesting things. Whether Reagan's tax cuts actually worked or not I leave to the economicists, but my opinion is, yes, they DID work. Everybody I know that wanted to work during the Reagan admin, did.

The only reason Clinton wasn't hung from the gallows, literally, is that despite his tamperings, the economy seems to be doing well. Had his troubles come along when things were not so good, he'd been bounced out of office and they wouldn't have been able to keep his multiple rape charges/incidents so well squashed media-wise.

Imran, glad to see you have some fire. Let them continue to have it!

posted 05-02-99 05:48 PM ET            

Reaganomics saved this nation! In fact, the Democrats of today are the same ones that were called Reagan Democrats in the 1980s

posted 05-02-99 06:10 PM ET            

but i thought liberals were kindly people protecting children from fat white conservatives.

why would you shoot somebody anyway? Guns are bad.

posted 05-02-99 09:19 PM ET            

The 80's--a wonderful time to be alive.

posted 05-02-99 11:01 PM ET            

Um, I have, and have repudiated it. Marx may have somewhat of an idea, but read the Manifesto and you'll realize the leaps he made without any proof. Perhaps the social democrats were better, but not much. Leninism wasn't really even Marxism, but it is best real world adaptation that could be done.

Yes, Ronald Reagan is my hero, along with Adam Smith, Milton Freedman, and Barry Goldwater. Reagan halted the huge expanse of government in the 1960s and 1970s. The recession ended BECAUSE of his policies not in spite of them! It is a fact that reducing taxes increases aggregate supply which results in less unemployment and more production (in terms of GDP). His policies caused a whole way of thinking. The Democrats of today would be considered the Liberal Republicans of the 50s. The Republicans are even farther right. Reagan began a sea-change that emphasized smaller government and less taxes, and LOOK at the prosperity. The United States has never seen such a peacetime boom as in the twenty year period of 1980-2000. Don't decieve yourself, the economic prosperity today is a result of Reganomics. Alan Greenspan, head of the 'Fed', who is responsible for this prosperity was appointed by Reagan and led Reaganomics to incredible gains! The time period of 1980-2000, when Republicans have dominated, compared to 1960-1980, when Democrats dominated are amazing! The 60s and 70s were two of the worst decades in American economic history, while the 80s and 90s are two of the best. Reagan is the man who has made America powerful again. He destroyed the Soviet Union, and revitalized a slumbering economy. The ends justify the means.

posted 05-03-99 05:26 PM ET            

Trippin Daily
-for those to lazy to go to a dictionary.. liberal: Not intolerant or prejudiced, broad minded... characterized by generousity and giving, caring for ones fellow man... favors policies regarding social progress-

posted 05-03-99 05:29 PM ET         

Darkstar: Kennedy did us no favors by dying. Johnson was able to get a lot of his crappy social programs passed by invoking Kennedy's name. If he'd lived, he would have been too busy fighting off his critics (remember, he was elected by one of the narrowest margins in history) and dodging scandals to do nearly as much damage.

posted 05-03-99 06:31 PM ET            

My list of DEMANDS:

1. A special poison Lollipop (KGB logo)

2. Three t-shirts with "I hate USA" on them (reward)

3. Dolly Parton costume to lure Reagan I'm a big breasted nurse he feels he recognizes

4. Nike Sneakers to make the escape

5. 17$ bribe money in case I run in to someone who gives a sh*t

6. A pouch of marbles to roll at jealous nurses seeing my tits, or to stuff them in Reagan's mouth if Plan A fails

7. Hat with a "I killed Reagan and now I'm happy in the streets of Smolensk" logo (reward)

8. A note cluttered with Imran's fingerprints saying "I did it"

9. Polaroid camera for photo session with me and Reagan's corpse

10. Plane ticket Smolensk, warm clothing and a box of Cuban cigars

Alright, mail me an answer and I will consider it. But I won't back an inch on my demands! Don't try it ye weasels!

posted 05-04-99 01:19 AM ET            

------------

Trip, maybe the atrocities were bad, but they were done in the name of security. Take Nicargua, the Sandinistas were financed by the Soviet Union. So, you want us to sit by and let another Soviet dominated nation sit in the Western Hemisphere. In retrospect, maybe saying we should have could be right, but at that time, the USSR was still powerful. It would have been a disaster! The Contras needed to be funded by the US.

Now, I don't understand why people say Reagan is bad because of the debt. The debt isn't THAT BAD! It is stigmatized as bad, but in economics, it is ok. The US has the world's largest GDP (by 2x the nation in second place, Japan). We can afford a debt. If you look at public debt, i.e. dept divided by GDP, the US is way below nations such as Canada, Belgium, Japan, and Sweden. In fact the US's public debt is just a smidge above the UK's public debt. And for all the talks about bankrupcy? Hogwash! The US's public debt as a percentage of GDP is about 60%, Belgium's is 125%! It has not gone bankrupt. Why? Because, governments can refinance loans, tax, or issue more money (at the expence of inflation). To reiterate, the debt DOES NOT matter at this point! Oh, and a balanced-budget amendment would also be murder for our economy....

posted 05-04-99 04:55 AM ET            

You also may not want to stand on so much Blue versus Red rhetoric. In this day and age, it will tend to sound very silly, as much of it was just silly then.

posted 05-04-99 06:34 AM ET         

Well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Favors policies regarding social progress?! What does that mean even? I like policies that I think make the world a better place? PUH-LEEZE.

As for education spending, allow me to also say that the FEDERAL government should not have a dime in education. Handle it closer to home. This is a button with me; I was homeschooled.

And for the violence never solves anything crowd, I point merely to the USA. This long standing great nation that you live in(mostly) allows you to spout such "liberal" notions because we won a WAR. It appears that violence CAN solve things.

posted 05-04-99 02:32 PM ET            

For homeschooling, not every parent can afford to have there child homeschooled. Many families also have both parents which work, so this makes them being taught by the parents out of the question.

Are we really that great Lirix. We have more people in jail per capita than ANY other nation in the world. That is not something to be proud of. We are one of only 5 nations (the rest are middle eastern countries) which allows the execution of the retarded and of children (in violation of the U.N. Declaration of Civil and Human Rights). We are the only industrialized nation that still practices the death penalty (it has not been shown to deter crime, and has been found more expensive than life imprisonment). So if you still think we live in a great nation, a nation of which is racially prejudiced, and economically prejudiced to people, you go ahead and think that. I think we live in a nation that can become great, but as of now, is only showing an illusion of granduer.

posted 05-04-99 03:31 PM ET            

14 years ago I may have agreed with you, 18 years ago I definitely would have. Now as Trippin' says it is senseless violence to shoot a man who may at best recognise his wife, and maybe not always then.

Darkstar, as I read through this for the first time I was waiting for someone to say that the ends never justify the means, thank you.

Reagen, was not what I feared he would be in '80, in some ways he was worse in others better. Did his economic policies help the country? I think they helped the people they were designed to help, and there were people they were not designed to help...

His foreign policies ending communism in the U.S.S.R., his policies were like the coach of the better football team leaving his starters in the game in a fourth quarter where the score was 63 - 14 in his favor.

Imran >"maybe the atrocities were bad, but they were done in the name of security". I'm not sure but I think there is a leader someplace in southeastern europe that would like to borrow that line... The ends do not justify the means. If we had spent the same money on assistance to Nicaragua that we spent on the contras we would have subverted any Russian/Cuban/communist influence existing at the time.

Fiscally the democrats have moved closer to the early 80's Reagen ideals, socially thank god they have not.

Two types of people in fiscal politics scare me. People who think that if we just give a little bit more money to somthing we can overcome the problems, and people who think that if we give just a little bit more money to big business's and "local governments" then we can overcome the problems. Money is a poor substitute for rational thought.

Irman while there are for worse heroes to choose, Clinton would surely be one who is worse. There are many talented, rational, and potentially influential people out there that you could devote your energies to.

I wish your line " I don't read Liberal propaganda..." read "I don't read propoganda, Liberal or Conservative, because there is just as much of that out there as anything else.

Trippin' you were doing a much better job of this than I, so I will hand back the reigns to you.

Goob

Starting a ne thread, Imran, who are you looking at for the 2000 elections? The question goes for all of you, I am honestly curious.

posted 05-05-99 01:42 AM ET            

Intimidating Force is used as a strong arm politics by all sorts, including the Government. This is much more effective at controlling people and their actions.

Revolution is generally just a nice way to say treason, coup, and civil war. Some cost less than others, but in history, most revolutions spilt a lot of blood. But you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs...

Many people think that the end justifies the means, but if they actually CROSS that Moral line, they find that they don't believe that. They can't live with it. This is always a danger in dealing with such large deep abyssal matters. I hope noone ever has to experience such. Just as I hope noone has to be in a war. Nasty stuff...

On Y2K Election -

Well... if its Quayle vs Gore, I will see if I can't write in someone else.

If its anyone else vs Gore, I'll vote the anyone else.

posted 05-05-99 05:10 AM ET         

Liberals follow liberalism, a belief according to a dictionary that believes in man's "essential goodness". No wonder we have so many problems with "progressive" laws. I'll bet that our higher prison population is mostly due to our higher freedoms, and the fact that people do NOT inherently choose good over evil.

I'm a little unclear on the child reference, could you provide some examples? If you mean abortion, it outright sickens me that people can consider such an action.

As for the death penalty, I like it myself. I've already been in one argument over it's pros and cons on another board(which subsequently crashed I might add). I'll shorten this round up with a summation of my stance. The death penalty is a penalty that fits certain crimes(mass murder is a good example). Our implementation of it sucks, we barely use it, and it's far easier to convict on a life sentence than a death sentence. That is a flaw in our jurors morals, NOT the penalty itself.

posted 05-05-99 06:16 AM ET            

I remember at the time I thought:
"Well, if USA really had to pick a right-wing actor to play the president role, they'd better picked Schwarzy or Eastwood"

IIRC, SDI made it into CivII.
Now, SMAC had it made better with Orbital Defense Pods.

MariOne
-what about Jerry Lewis? (you know, "back to the future" quote...)

posted 05-05-99 06:49 AM ET         

As for racism, have you ever judged someone before you had all the facts or known them personally? It falls into the same line of reasoning as racism, even though it isn't due to the color of their skin. Oh, no one has ever honestly answered that question no, btw.

As Morgan says, "Human behavior is economic behavior". There, now it's about SMAC.

Lirix

posted 05-05-99 06:54 AM ET         

Be an excellent parental system too. Eat your vegetables, or else!

posted 05-05-99 08:11 AM ET         

I see it very simply overall. People commit crime for a gain of some kind(monetary, the rush, whatever). If you allow that you can do anything you put your mind to, then crime could obviously pay. The other side of course is that someone would want to catch you for violating societal standards. In the end there will be more people attempting to catch/kill you than help you continue commiting crime. A simple formula that boils down to : DON'T BREAK THE LAW!

Personally I believe that those who break a law should not be protected by it. Hence people such as say Dahmer(noted mass murderer and sicko)have no right to life(much less a less than cruel environment). I've always found cruel and unusual punishment to be a rather silly concept overall anyway. Isn't the point of punishment to be cruel?(However humane it might be.)

Obviously the UN document doesn't specifically state that. It does remain vague enough to allow for that to happen however. Don't you love law?

As for a federal law preventing the execution of minors, execution makes it sound like a legal process. I don't think there's a judge who'd allow for it in all honesty. We do have abortions however, so....

posted 05-05-99 01:50 PM ET            

Note: I do not feel I am comparing a fetus to a criminal, and I apologize to any who feel I have.

I am making the argument that in order to be consistent one should feel that either an individual's Human Rights take precedence over a societie's or group's rights, or the society/group's rights take precedence over the individual's human rights.

This is based on the assumption that either Human Rights are inalienable or they are not.

Punishment in the U.S. is meant to deter, reform, and discipline. It is not meant to be cruel. If you "punish" a child (a term I prefer is discipline) you are attempting to deter similar future behavior, teach them a better way to behaive, and show them that the behavior will not be accepted. You are not attempting to be cruel. To do so, whether the object is a child or a twisted pedophile, is to reduce you to the level of a criminal.

>"As for racism, have you ever judged someone before you had all the facts or known them personally? It falls into the same line of reasoning as racism, even though it isn't due to the color of their skin. Oh, no one has ever honestly answered that question no, btw." <

This is faulty logic. A person is mildly racist if he sees someone of a differant ethnicity and chooses to avoid them because of that difference. the person is more extremely racict if he feels a sense of hatred or fear towards that person because of the ethnic difference. Making a judgement about someone before having all the facts or knowing them personally is something one has to do everyday just to make it through the day. A judgement based on one's honest experiences with interacting with people in a civil, adult manner is not a kin to racism.

If I walk into a room and there is someone there of a "differant ethnicity", and the person is well dressed, reading the Wall Street Journal, smoking a cigarette, and drinking a scotch, while there is another person of "my ethnic group" playing SMAC, drinking a Bass Ale and dressed in a t-shirt and shorts, well I am going to be quite a bit more comfortable approaching the person playing SMAC, than Mr. Business at the other table. This is not a "racist" decision. If the ethnicities were reversed I would still feel more comfortable approaching the SMAC player no matter that this person is of a differant ethnicity. (unless the SMAC player looked like Yang, then I may hang back a little bit ) It is a snap judgement, or a SMAC judgement, but one that has no hatred involved. The SMAC player could turn out to be a complete idiot or a**hole, while Mr. Buisiness may be a computer consultant looking for an up and coming guru to pay $90K a year for telling people to buy Windows NT. The point is that my judgements while uniformed werebased on honest expectations of their behaivior and having nothing to do with their ethnicity. My quick choices could be termed prejudicial but not racist (even saying prejudicial is full of negative connotations, though this stems from prejudicial decisions based on negative stereotypes). There is a difference between the two. One involves hatred, while the other involves merely making uninformed decisions.

Racist thought is tied in to hatred, please do not compare everyday decisions and judgements to this.

posted 05-05-99 03:57 PM ET         

Racism is merely prejudice of a specific kind. To state otherwise is to make a distinction where there is none. To condemn someone for having prejudicies is outright hypocrisy. Some people have elevated this racism to extremes to be sure, but we again break into stereotypes. What is affirmative action if not enforced racism? Try to think carefully before answering that.

Was the mispelling of my name intentional btw? And just for grins, I'd like to hear some guesses as to my "profile". Guess what kind of person I am please. I'm actually quite interested to hear how I come across. Feel free to use other posts of mine to form a clearer picture, albeit I don't have all that many here yet.

posted 05-05-99 05:17 PM ET            

I realize that there is a world of differance between the behavior of a "unborn human" and a teen gang member. My point was that Human Rights are indifferant to behavior. Mother Theresa or Reagan or a gang member or a unborn child do not have differant Human Rights, one of the main Human Rights is the right to life...

Because Human rights are blind to behavior, if society determines that it has the right to supercede these rights then they have given themselves the right to supercede them in all cases. Having made this decision the society creates laws that say in these cases we can execute someone because they have no place in our society. My leap here is to say that women, as a societal group have the same right to protect the rights of their physical bodies as a State has the right to protect its societal body. Thus women have the right to choose over the Human Right of the unborn child, as the State as the right to choose over the Human Rights of the individual within the society.

Obviously there is at least some moral differance between the choices. I am not saying one is a good or bad choice, nor whether the other is a good or bad choice.

Honestly, if you want to say that I can't make the leap from the State making a decision that it has the right to seek the execution of criminal, to allowing a 19 year old girl/woman the right to choose to end her pregnancy... well there isn't much I can say to that. I can see a connection but if you don't you don't and I hope I have not offended.

Lirix > "Racism is merely prejudice of a specific kind. To state otherwise is to make a distinction where there is none. To condemn someone for having prejudicies is outright hypocrisy. Some people have elevated this racism to extremes to be sure, but we again break into stereotypes. What is affirmative action if not enforced racism? Try to think carefully before answering that. " <
Of course there is a distinction. You state it twice in that quote. 1) It is prejudice of a specific kind and 2) it is elevated to extremes in some cases. That is the distinction. Everyone has prejudices. My Dad (a kinder soul you'll never meet) believes that if someone doesn't read the New York Times that culturely inferior, and I am prejudice to think that people who don't like strategy games are intellectually inferior to those who do. A stereotype that is surely untrue. There is nothing racist about either.
Racism is prejudice involving the ethnicity and "color" of an individual (prejudice of a specific kind) and it involves hatred (prejudice elevated to an extreme).

posted 05-05-99 10:45 PM ET         

Human Rights are indifferent to behavior, eh? I guess that's something else we disagree on. Your behavior will directly effect what rights I think you should have. Hence my willingness to kill murderers and yet spare babies. I would hope that the woman involved in abortion would have much stronger moral objections then I; it is after all her child. As I stated, if the woman's life is in danger, and the child will most likely not survive, then an abortion seems palatable. I think taking a life before it even begins is simply incredibly unfair. Although I admit, I rarely play fair, given the option.

And for the record Goob, you'll have to do a lot better to offend me. I enjoy discussions like these on an open forum. I'm rather into verbal debate and the clash of ideas and ideals. Rare is an idea that I'm so vehemently opposed to that I can't even voice the matter. In fact, no subjects come to mind in that category....

posted 05-06-99 12:49 AM ET            

The precedding comments were paid for by the Dan "Mr. Potato Head" Quayle for President.
LMFAO....

CatsAt8...(drinking my beer and surfing,I hope its still legal)

posted 05-06-99 07:30 AM ET         

First you say get rid of religion, then tax it. Obviously you don't expect the former to occur. Your reasoning for the latter befuddles even me however. Why should churches be taxed "since they poke their noses into politics"? Unless I missed something there is no standing law for the separation of church and state. The founding fathers of the USA were very moral people, with a strong faith. As such I believe they assumed that God would influence them in all aspects of their lives. Makes it hard to get him to butt out, you know?

As a much more interesting thought, why not expose students in our public schools to every major religion(There's 7 as I recall, so this could be done one a year, 2nd through 8th)? When I was last in school I know they had "social studies"; this would seem to be the perfect forum for this exposure. Might also be interesting to see if they begin devoutly following one of these as well, and if yes, which one draws the majority?

*Sigh*...while I'm dreaming I might as well get a pony too.

posted 05-06-99 09:53 AM ET            

I to had *social studies* in school and agree %100 about exposure to all major religions.
My *tax churches* comment was because of all the religious PACS that love to try and determine what moral type bills should be passed,what candidates represent our *values*.
I just figure if they (churches) want to bleed society of $$,they should pay property taxes.
But I do feel that American schools (public) should have classes to teach the basic principles of the major religions.
That also will never happen.

PS. Its not the beer that clouds the line of thought..is my typing..LOL

posted 05-06-99 09:58 AM ET            

Founding Fathers ? Didnt they cheat the native Americans on that *beads for Manhatten* deal ? LOL...Not very moral thing to do now was it ?

posted 05-06-99 11:35 AM ET            

I think our racism discussion is boiling down to semantics, you are willing to apply racism to a broad range of behaviors and I to a more limited but despicable range.

As for the rights discussion, in my mind a convicted criminal's Civil Rights can be modified as a result of their crime. But their Human Rights are acquired at conception and leave at some point after death. Thus the term inalienable.

One of the problems with Public education is that the schools are already asked to "teach" too much to too many students of differant abilities and interests. While there are many students who would benefit from an education in the tenants of religion, there are just as many who would just have one more boring class that they wanted to ignore, before going back to hanging with their friends.

posted 05-06-99 06:13 PM ET            

As for the purchase of Manhatten...wasnt meant to be technically accurate as much as a moral comparison.As for *who looks like who*...LMAO..Yang looks like Slobbering Molosevich.I could be wrong (am Male so I am always wrong).

CatsAt8

posted 05-07-99 03:35 AM ET         

Goob, public education is a cookie-cutter system. Because people are so different, it is inherently difficult for public schools to function in the manner they were intendid. I think homeschooling makes more sense overall, assuming some basic intelligence on the part of the parents(who will probably do the teaching). As for the offense factor, you implied I might find a statement offensive and I was lightheartedly informing you that I'm extremely thick skinned. Actually, I'm also attempting to aquire aredhran's supplier for that new mk4, just in case.

posted 05-07-99 12:58 PM ET         

I understand what you're saying though. And even homeschooling has it's drawbacks. Ask my mom; she hated the way I'd get up at 4am, be done by 8 and generally wake her in the process. Robotech was on at 5 and I wanted to catch it, ya know?

posted 05-07-99 01:36 PM ET            

Then there are the families where the parents do not value education, if there were no public education system their children would receive no education, plus parents who would do a poor job of educating their children (worse than Pub schools) (hmmn Pub schools, those could be fun I'll take the homebrew class this semester...)anyway... Then there are families where all the adults work, what will the children do during the day?

It is my opinion that home schooling would work well for a very small percentage of the population. The obligation for parents is to find the system that works well for their kids. (For many students the public system works fine.)

posted 05-07-99 01:39 PM ET            

I couldn't let that pass with out giving my own Hear! Hear!

posted 05-07-99 09:10 PM ET         

First off, Reagan was our greatest modern president (Sorry, opinion)

Lets get some raw facts here.
(All statistics take inflation into account)
From 1983-1990, the Mean household income in the lowest Quintile (lowest twenty percent wage earners) rose 7.3%.
Second rose 8.7%
Third rose 8.8%
Fourth rose 9.8%
Fifth rose 17.7%
(Source, U.S. Bureau of the Census Report)

From 1983 to 1989, the percentage of this country below the poverty line went from 15.2% to 12.8%.
(Source, American Almanac 1993 ed.)

From 1980-1990, the percentage share of tax burden among all five quintiles
Lowest, 1.6%-1.6%
Second, 7%-6.6%
Third, 13.4%-12.6%
Fourth, 22.2%-21%
Fifth, 55.7%-58.1%
(Source, Congressional Budget Office)

From 1983-1989, the increase of Income Tax Revenues went from 275.3 billion dollars a year, to 354.4 billion dollars a year, including a thirty percent tax cut and a stock market crash. Who says supply-side economics doesn't work?
(Source, IRS Statistics of Income)

From 1981-1988, the amount of Federal Social spending went from 11.6% to 10.9%.
Yet the percent of GNP provided by the States and local governments (who could handle the money better than the Feds) to Social Programs went from 7% in 1981 to 7.6% in 1988.
(source, Information Please Almanac, 1991 edition)

Now to the question of the National Debt.
First of all, the vast majority of the bloating debt occured because of the interest on the debt, and when interest compounds, the debt grows at an alarming rate. Yet when you look at the stats, in 1983, the debt was growing at a rate of 117% a year, yet by 1988, the debt was growing 110% a year, almost half as fast. Except for a brief period in 1990(Bush), the debt has fallen at about the same rate until it hits an even 100% under Clinton, and look who takes credit.
(Source, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Deficit)

posted 05-10-99 07:10 AM ET            

Aredhran

posted 05-10-99 09:19 AM ET         

School is taught roughly 40 hours a week, correct? I assume that there are administrative duties that take place in the background, another 20-40 hours? For how many students? 30? 40? My mom got by with relatively little work(20 hours a week total except when procuring books I believe), but I'm probably the exception and not the rule.

I'd put more faith in a system of education that didn't graduate illiterate simpletons.

posted 05-10-99 12:53 PM ET            

School is taught roughly 40 hours a week, correct? I assume that there are administrative duties that take place in the background, another 20-40 hours? For how many students? 30? 40? My mom got by with relatively little work(20 hours a week total except when procuring books I believe), but I'm probably the exception and not the rule.

Are you commenting on how many hours a week a student at a public school takes to be taught something, or how many hours a week someone is working to educate a student? I don't want to argue against something you're not saying.

I taught summer school a couple of years ago - public school, Junior High - some of the scariest and most wonderful kids I've ever had the opportunity to meet. I had students who were trying to get a jump start on the next year, others who were there because their parents wanted something to keep them busy over the summer, and yet others who had to pass my course to be allowed in the next grade. I taught an Astronomy course, a city gov't planning course (using Sim City of course), and a math course. In my Astronomy course I had one student who knew more about NASA than I did, another who was a teacher's daughter and would do amazing work on every project I gave the class, and another whose brothers were all in gangs, he had no respect for school or anyone else and was there because his mom wanted to try and keep him out of trouble. (How I loved the days when he was sick.) But after working with him for the summer it turns out that I was the first teacher he had connected with in years. The first one who had shown him any respect. He never did "great work", but the change in his attitude and what he was willing to try by the end of the summer was amazing. Though this was only in my class - he was regularly sent to the office by his other teachers.

In my math class I had a student who had been expelled by the district, and needed to complete a list of summer course and get the reccomendation of his teachers to return. He had the highest grade in my math class, showed the greatest interest in learning, and though initially very sullen turned out to have a great sense of humor. At the end of the summer, he finally gave me a response as to why he had been expelled, he had assaulted his last teacher with a knife.

In that class I had another student who was easily the brightest student in the class, yet she almost never finished any of her tests. I talked with some of the other staff and someone knew her from a few years back and said that she used to be an honor student, until shortly after her parents divorced. Now she hung out with the Skater crowd and it appeared that she was determined to think that it wasn't cool for her to be smart. (even though all her friends, obvious from their behavior, knew she was smarter than any of them.) The first half of any test she took was near perfect, then she would just stop and fiddle around and pretend to cheat off her friend's test. Everytime she came close to letting her guard down she would realize that she was about to open up to "the teacher" and she would just shut down and wouldn't talk to me for a couple of days.

Now that you all know more than you ever wanted to know about Goob's Summer school teaching experience. (by the way, try teaching with the last name of Gooby... )

The reason I brought this up, is not to give a ringing endorsement of public schools, but to show that while that system does not work well, it has its faults and many inadequacies, the problem is that there is no way that our current educational philosophy can deal with educating students coming from shattered lives.
The private education system, is too expensive and too elitist. Lets see what happens at elite private prep schools if there is ever a voucher system allowing students from the "poorer" ranks to pour into their closed ranks. "Mummy" and "Daddy" just would want their protected little children to be put into danger by these "hooligans". Ho,eschooling only works when you have a highly motivated family who have some skills with education, and where the parent(s) child will not go at each other's throats within a matter of hours. (Some of the students I tutor have highly able parents, but whenever they try working together they drive each other nuts.) Public Schools will take all the rest in, and for the most part do their best. With motivated and able students they will produce well educated individuals, when the students have minor learing disabilities that remain undiagnosed and neither they nor their parents are motivated to succeed then they will "fall through the cracks" and come out under-educated and unprepared. Had there been no public school there then these same students would have instead of falling through the cracks would have fell through the gaping big hole at an even higher rate of speed and ultimately crashed all the harder.

Lirix, I applaud home-schooling for those that choose to do it. Not all cases are as successful as yours, and then there are many people who realize quite quickly that it will not work for them and they choose a differant route.

posted 05-10-99 01:01 PM ET            

Goob

posted 05-10-99 02:24 PM ET         

By the very nature of people, no one system can make us all happy all of the time. It'd be nice to see one try anyway though.

And this has little to no point, but I gotta rhyme some.

Reagan. Was he right, was he wrong?
Was he stupid, or bright as the day is long?
Did he have a plan, was he sure?
Or are we all fish on a lure?

posted 05-11-99 11:19 PM ET         

Remember inflation is taken into account

Social Budgets:
the percentage of total federal outlays in '81:
54%
in 88:
49.1%
Amount of capital in dollars put into social spending:
'81, 344 billion,
'88, 532 billion.

The percent of state and local outlays for social spending in:
'81, 63.1%, $207 billion
'88, 60.1%, $363 billion

total govt. social spending:
'81, 56.9%
'88, 52.8%
(Source, Information Please Almanac, 1991 edition)
Note: The percent of GNP can be found in my last post.

This shows that while Reagan cut the percent of social spending, the amount of money to social causes went up considerably.

Number below poverty line:
'83: 35.3 million
'89: 31.5 million (percentages are on previous post)
(Source, American Almanac, 1993 edition)

Lets look at job creation:
Percentage of jobs created paying under $7,012:
Carter: 42.77%
Reagan 6%

$7,012-$28,048
Carter: 68.2%
Reagan: 46.2%

Over $28,048:
Carter: -9.9% (yep, thats a negative)
Reagan: 46.1%

Now to those earning $200,000 or more:
Tax Rate in
'80, 70%; '88, 28%
#of returns
'80, 117,000; '88, 725,000
%of income
'80, 7.5%; '88, 25.3%
Total taxes collected
'80, $250.3 billion; '88, $412.9 billion
(IRS Statistics-published October 12, 1992 in Arkansas Democrat gazette)

Hmmmmm...
Now an interesting question has been brought up as to tax deductions. True, some deductions were taken away, but the principle cause of the deductions to begin with was to get rich people to spend more money to build up the economy. So most were on things the rich (or anyone) might like, for instance a country club membership, or a credit deduction from a car. Well, it turned out that this wasn't strengthening the economy(I'm not just talking about taxes here). Therefore, by cutting most of these deductions, the rich spent money elsewhere, where they could get a deduction and strengthen the economy, like their own businesses. See a pattern? (Happy, not a statistic for once!)

So, to answer your question, these stats should prove that the govt. really didn't charge more, they helped redirect the outlet of money from luxuries to investments. And I think I've answered the Social spending.

Oh, and Mcerion, if thats your best argument, I guess I've won.

posted 05-11-99 11:24 PM ET         

Anyway, tommorrow lets discuss something relevant (like not attacking statistics as a whole without substance, more like attacking the ones I spent a LONG FU*KING time to gather and write. Oh, I guess if your in another time zone, you could start posting.

posted 05-12-99 02:01 AM ET         

And if you are going to outright dismiss the statics that prove you're right, then by golly what are you arguing about? Reagan cut social spending by several percent; it just so happens that the overall funds available were higher and so no ACTUAL decrease in $$ occurs.

Economics isn't a divide up a pie system; you can make a bigger pie too!

posted 05-12-99 04:40 AM ET            

Your supporting evidence is excellent. Use of statistics to support one's claims is indeed a powerful tool. However, are you absolutely certain of the source of your statistics. The saying "figures don't lie, liars figure" is more true than I would like to admit. People who understand numbers know how easily they can be manipulated to represent any data set they choose. I can indeed prove the government (no Mcerion, Reagan didn't personally chahas changed the numbers) mathematical formulas for a number of economically important statistics (most notably inflation and the cost of living index) many times over the history of our country. However, it would take several hours to read assuming you have a very strong background in calculus and statistical analysis.

posted 05-12-99 09:35 PM ET         

I forgot a couple of important points. First of all, the deductions for investments like, say, retirement, things that'll help you later in life, tax deductions increased. This was a major point in making the nation wealthier, by incouraging people to save, not spend.

Oh, and the hospital deal:
Reagan didn't personally kick them out, neither did his administration. The Supreme Court ruled that if an insane person wished to leave the hospitals, they could. Now, you've already seen the figures showing Reagan as handing over more social responsibility to the states. He also handed the responibility of the mental hospitals to the State and Locals.

PhysicsMan:
I see what you mean, but I did not manipulate these figure in any beneficial way(yah yah, that doesn't help). I did do some calculating, but that was using Quatro Pro, and I assume that program is unbiased. Anyway, no one is perfect, and if someone can prove my facts as false, I'll be open to it. But PLEASE, get accurate info, and say where the source is coming from.

posted 05-13-99 08:48 PM ET         

I need to get back to that.

posted 05-15-99 04:48 PM ET            

OK, unless there is some fresh blood from the left here, I think we have drained this topic of all of its worth.

You right wing guys have made some good points, but I don't think anyone here has changed anyone's mind on anything. You Reaganphiles still think his **** doesn't stink and the Reagancidal gang still wants him dead, although he isn't even a political force any longer.